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

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 37 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. J. RES. 37

     To disapprove a rule promulgated by the Administrator of the 
  Environmental Protection Agency relating to emission standards for 
                    certain steam generating units.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 16, 2012

 Mr. Inhofe introduced the following joint resolution; which was read 
  twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
     To disapprove a rule promulgated by the Administrator of the 
  Environmental Protection Agency relating to emission standards for 
                    certain steam generating units.

Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
Agency relating to national emission standards for hazardous air 
pollutants from coal- and oil-fired electric utility steam generating 
units and standards of performance for fossil-fuel-fired electric 
utility, industrial-commercial-institutional, and small industrial-
commercial-institutional steam generating units (77 Fed. Reg. 9304 
(February 16, 2012)), and such rule shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
#### ARTHUR McDANIEL, PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER, v. SHELBY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

October 17, 1960.

*Messrs. Winard & Winard*for the petitioner.

*Messrs. Kristeller, Zuclcer, Lowenstein & Cohen*and *Mr. Milton Curny*for the respondent.

Denied.
**EXHIBIT 10.11**

 

AMENDMENT to WORK ORDER

 

This AmendmentGASOW-STAR100606-00.A.006 to Work Order (‘‘WO”), GASOW-STAR100606-00 effectiveas of July 1, 2009 (“Effective Date”), between StarTek, Inc. (“StarTek”),a Delaware corporation, and AT&T Mobility LLC, (“AT&T”) a Delawarelimited liability company, on behalf of itself and its Affiliates, amends thework order described below.

 

RECITALS

 

WHEREAS,AT&T and StarTek entered into a Master Service Agreement on October 1,2006 (the “MSA”);

 

WHEREAS AT&T and StarTekexecuted Work Order GASOW-STAR100606-00 dated November 30, 2006 (‘‘WO”)pursuant to the MSA to provide services to AT&T Mobility LLC;

 

WHEREASAT&T and StarTek desire to amend the term of the WO;

 

NOW THEREFORE, FOR AND INCONSIDERATION of the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties agreeto amend the WO as follows:

 

1.   Section 3. “Term” of the WOis hereby deleted in its entirety and it is replaced by the following:

 

“3. ‘The Term of this SOW shallcommence on November 30,2006 (“Effective Date”), and shall continue untilmidnight on July 31, 2009 (the “Initial Term).  The SOW may be terminated as allowed in theAgreement or in this SOW.”

 

2.         Except as amended by thisAmendment, the WO is not otherwise modified, revoked or superseded and remainsin full force and effect.

 

3.         This amendment maintains servicespending approval of new work order.

 

INWITNESS WHEREOF, the parties execute this Amendment as of the Effective Date.

 
| **StarTek  Inc.** | ** **             | **AT&T  Mobility LLC by its authorized Representative AT&T Services, Inc.** |
|-------------------|------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| ** **        | ** **             | ** **                                                                               |
| By:               | /s/  A. Laurence Jones |                                                                                     | By: | /s/  Karen Tays |
|              |                   |                                                                                     |   |   |
| Printed  Name:    | A. Laurence  Jones     |                                                                                     | Printed  Name: | Karen  Tays |
|              |                   |                                                                                     |   |   |
| Title:            | CEO                    |                                                                                     | Title: | Senior  Contract Manager |
|              |                   |                                                                                     |   |   |
| Date:             | 6/29/09                |                                                                                     | Date: | 6/29/09 |

 

**Proprietary Information**

The information contained in this Agreement is not for use or disclosureoutside AT&T, StarTek, their affiliated companies and their third partyrepresentatives, except under written Agreement by the contracting Parties.

 

1

----
# C_2019139EN.01009801.xml

| 15.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 139/98 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 139/98

---

Action brought on 20 February 2019 — Mutondo v Council

(Case T-119/19)

(2019/C 139/99)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Kalev Mutondo (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, M. Forgeois, and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1940 of 10 December 2018, in so far as the applicant remains at No 14 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1940 of 10 December 2018, in so far as the applicant remains at No 14 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP;

| — | annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1931 of 10 December 2018, in so far as the applicant remains at No 14 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1931 of 10 December 2018, in so far as the applicant remains at No 14 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;

| — | rule that the provisions of Article 3(2)(a) and (b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP and Article 2b(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) 1183/2005/EC are unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

rule that the provisions of Article 3(2)(a) and (b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP and Article 2b(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) 1183/2005/EC are unlawful;

| — | order the Council to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those raised in Case T-103/19, Mende Omalanga v Council.

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0709

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

vs. 

CISSY DEEN MANYHIDES,

Defendant and Appellant.

GRANT

Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the 

Appellant is given an extension of time until March 18, 2024, to 

prepare, file, and serve the Appellant’s opening brief.

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

February 12 2024

02/12/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0709
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         296,000
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  27,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   10,000
<INVENTORY>                                    218,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               602,000
<PP&E>                                         115,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 29,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 754,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          13,888,000
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       36,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     29,250,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   754,000
<SALES>                                        297,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               297,000
<CGS>                                          237,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,733,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               937,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             937,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,373,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                18,000
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,357,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.08)



</TABLE>
# C_2019172EN.01004301.xml

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/43

---

Action brought on 27 March 2019 — Aurea Biolabs v EUIPO — Avizel (AUREA BIOLABS)

(Case T-184/19)

(2019/C 172/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aurea Biolabs Pte Ltd (Cochin, India) (represented by: B. Brandreth, QC and L. Oommen, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Avizel SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for figurative mark AUREA BIOLABS — Application for registration No 15 836 737

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 January 2019 in Case R 814/2018-2 (CORR)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order the payment of the Applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the payment of the Applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law

| — | In support of its decision, the Board of Appeal relies on an invalid provision of law; |
| --- | --- |

—

In support of its decision, the Board of Appeal relies on an invalid provision of law;

| — | Had there been an obvious error of law, the appropriate course was to revoke the previous decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

Had there been an obvious error of law, the appropriate course was to revoke the previous decision;

| — | Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and of the principles of natural justice. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and of the principles of natural justice.

---
# Official Journal C 150/2011

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2011.150.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 150 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5420 May 2011 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2011.150.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 150

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5420 May 2011

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | III   Preparatory acts |
| | EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK |
| | European Central Bank |
| 2011/C 150/01 | Opinion of the European Central Bank of 16 February 2011 on economic governance reform in the European Union (CON/2011/13) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

III   Preparatory acts

EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK

European Central Bank

2011/C 150/01

Opinion of the European Central Bank of 16 February 2011 on economic governance reform in the European Union (CON/2011/13)

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
# C_2020036EN.01003001.xml

| 3.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 36/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 36/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 December 2019 — Idea Groupe v EUIPO — The Logistical Approach (Idealogistic Verhoeven Greatest care in getting it there)

(Case T-29/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Idealogistic Verhoeven Greatest care in getting it there - Earlier national word marks idéa logistique, IDEA and groupe idea - Earlier national figurative mark iDÉA - International registrations designating the European Union - Earlier figurative mark iDÉA and earlier word mark IDEA - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Use of a sign in the course of trade of more than mere local significance - Article 8(4) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2020/C 36/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Idea Groupe (Montoir-de-Bretagne, France) (represented by: P. Langlais, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: V. Ruzek, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: The Logistical Approach BV (Uden, Netherlands) (represented by: R. Milchior and S. Charbonnel, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 November 2018 (Case R 2064/2017-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Idea Groupe and The Logistical Approach.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 12 November 2018 (Case R 2064/2017-4); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 12 November 2018 (Case R 2064/2017-4);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO and The Logistical Approach BV to bear their own costs and each to pay half of the costs incurred by Idea Groupe. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO and The Logistical Approach BV to bear their own costs and each to pay half of the costs incurred by Idea Groupe.

---

(1)  OJ C 93, 11.3.2019.

---
# Official Journal C 334I/2021

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 334I |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6420 August 2021 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 334I

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6420 August 2021

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2021/C 334 I/01 | Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2021/C 334 I/01

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

| 20.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CI 334/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CI 334/1

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

(2021/C 334 I/01)

In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Union control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:

| Date and time of closure | 24.7.2021 at 24:00 UTC |
| --- | --- |
| Duration | 24.7.2021 at 24:00 UTC - 31.12.2021 |
| Member State | European Union (All Member States) |
| Stock or Group of stocks | RED/N3M. |
| Species | Redfishes (Sebastes spp.) |
| Zone | NAFO 3M |
| Type(s) of fishing vessels | — |
| Reference number | 14/TQ92 |

Date and time of closure

24.7.2021 at 24:00 UTC

Duration

24.7.2021 at 24:00 UTC - 31.12.2021

Member State

European Union (All Member States)

Stock or Group of stocks

RED/N3M.

Species

Redfishes (Sebastes spp.)

Zone

NAFO 3M

Type(s) of fishing vessels

—

Reference number

14/TQ92

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

---
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 on Form 10-Q of Merrill Lynch
Preferred Capital Trust II (the "Trust") and Merrill Lynch Preferred
Funding II, L.P. for the period ended March 26, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Haig J. Nargesian, Regular Trustee of the Trust, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
    respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust.





                              MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST II


                              By:  /s/ HAIG J. NARGESIAN
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                              Name:    Haig J. Nargesian *
                              Title:   Regular Trustee









Dated: May 6, 2004
__________________

* Haig J. Nargesian functions as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer
  and Chief  Financial  Officer of the Trust for  purposes  of Section  906
  of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Francisco Martinez, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a *189judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Murray, J), rendered November 1,. 1982, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree and arson in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious issues that could be raised upon 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). Mollen, P. J., Titone, O’Connor and Rubin, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit
      31.1**





Certifications





I,
      Dr.
      Ramesh Zacharias, certify that:





1.
      I
      have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Med-Emerg International
      Inc.;





2.
      Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
      statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
      make
      the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
      were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
      report;





3.
      Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
      included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects
      the
      financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant
      as
      of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;





4.
      The
      registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing
      and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange
      Act
      Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:





a)  designed
      such disclosure
      controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the
      registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
      others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this
      quarterly report is being prepared;





b)  evaluated
      the
      effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and
      presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
      disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by
      this
      report based on such evaluation; and





c)  disclosed
      in this
      quarterly report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial
      reporting that occurred during the registrant’s third fiscal quarter that has
      materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
      registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.





5.
      The
      registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
      recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
      registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
      (or persons performing the equivalent functions):





a)  all
      significant
      deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal
      control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
      the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
      information; and





b)  any
      fraud, whether or not
      material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant
      role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.





Date: November
      14, 2007,





/s/
                Dr. Ramesh ZachariasDr.
                Ramesh ZachariasChief
                Executive Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Argelio Cuesta, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Altman, J., at plea and sentence; Shorter, J., at suppression hearing), rendered on January 14, 1983, which convicted defendant of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and bail jumping in the first degree, and imposed indeterminate concurrent terms of *2V2*to 5 years and 2 to 4 years, respectively, modified, on the law, the facts, ánd as a *11matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to reduce defendant’s sentence for bail jumping in the first degree to IV2 to 3 years, and otherwise affirmed.

As the District Attorney acknowledges, the court sentenced the defendant to a term of 2 to 4 years for bail jumping in the first degree on the mistaken view that the original promise of a sentence of *11⁄2*to 3 years was illegal, the court mistakenly believing that bail jumping in the first degree was a violent felony.

Accordingly, the sentence is modified to reflect that which was originally promised to the defendant. We have considered the other issues raised on this appeal and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sandler, J. P., Ross, Asch, Milonas and Rosenberger, JJ.
# L_2008243EN.01S00301.xml

| 11.9.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 243/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 243/s3

---

NOTE TO THE READER

The institutions have decided no longer to quote in their texts the last amendment to cited acts.

Unless otherwise indicated, references to acts in the texts published here are to the version of those acts currently in force.

---