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

<PAGE>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       3,909,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  799,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  7,462,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            13,071,000
<PP&E>                                       1,393,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 286,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,216,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,296,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        9,943,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        49,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 (4,939,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,216,000
<SALES>                                      3,558,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,558,000
<CGS>                                        2,712,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,584,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,667,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (5,667,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,667,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.19)




</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 14.2 Consent of Registered Public Accounting Firm To the Board of Directors of
Companhia Vale do Rio Doce (CVRD) We hereby consent to the use in this Annual Report on Form 20-F of Companhia Vale do Rio Doce and
Vale Overseas of our report dated January 21, 2004 relating to the Financial Statements of ALBRAS 
Alumínio Brasileiro S.A. for the year ended December 31, 2003, which is included in such Annual
Report. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
May 30, 2005 /s/ Trevisan Auditores IndependentesTREVISAN AUDITORES INDEPENDENTES
# C_2019295EN.01007602.xml

| 2.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/76 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/76

---

Action brought on 5 July 2019 — Florio v Parliament

(Case T-465/19)

(2019/C 295/101)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Luigi Andrea Florio (Asti, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;

| — | order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.

---
(121 App. Div. 424.)

#### ANDERSON v. ROSENBERG.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 11, 1907.)

Nonsuit—Grounds—Premature Action.

Where a complaint alleged a promise to pay plaintiff an amount to be paid by a trust company for assessments as soon as payment was made by the company, and action was brought December 4th, whereas payment was not made by the company until December 23d following, the action was prematurely brought, and a nonsuit was properly granted.

[Ed. Note.—For eases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 17, Dismissal and Non-suit, § 108.]

Appeal from Special Term, Kings County.

Action by Rachel Anderson against Charles Rosenberg. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Modified and affirmed.

Argued before JENKS, HOOKER, GAYNOR, RICH, and MILLER, JJ.

Stanislaus N. Tuckman, for appellant.

Edwin L. Kalish, for respondent.

HOOKER, J.

The complaint alleged a promise of the defendant to pay to the plaintiff $1,000, or so much thereof as the trust company paid for assessments, as soon as .the trust company made the payment. The action was commenced on the 4th day of December, 1905, by the service of the summons on the defendant. The payment by the trust company of the assessments was not made until the 23d day of December, 1905. The nonsuit was, therefore, properly granted, for the reason that the action was prematurely brought. The judgment, however, provides that the complaint should be dismissed “upon the merits.”

Because of this error, the judgment must be modified by striking out the words “upon the merits,” and, as thus modified, affirmed, without costs. All concur.
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 143 

Supporting the goals and ideals of National Safe Digging Month. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 12, 2011 

Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself and Mr. THUNE) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Supporting the goals and ideals of National Safe Digging 

Month. 

Whereas each year, the underground utility infrastructure of 

the United States, including pipelines, electric, gas, telecommunications, water, sewer, and cable television lines, 

is jeopardized by unintentional damage caused by those 

who fail to have underground lines located prior to 

digging; 

Whereas some utility lines are buried only a few inches underground, making the lines easy to strike, even during 

shallow digging projects; 

Whereas digging prior to locating underground utility lines 

often results in unintended consequences, such as service 

interruption, environmental damage, personal injury, and 

even death; 


srobinson on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 143 ATS 

Whereas the month of April marks the beginning of the peak 

period during which excavation projects are carried out 

around the United States; 

Whereas in 2002, Congress required the Department of 

Transportation and the Federal Communications Commission to establish a 3-digit, nationwide, toll-free number to be used by State ‘‘One Call’’ systems to provide 

information on underground utility lines; 

Whereas in 2005, the Federal Communications Commission 

designated ‘‘811’’ as the nationwide ‘‘One Call’’ number 

for homeowners and excavators to use to obtain information on underground utility lines before conducting excavation activities; 

Whereas ‘‘811’’ has helped reduce the amount of digging 

damage caused by a failure to call before digging from 

57 percent in 2004 to 37.5 percent in 2009; 

Whereas the 1,400 members of the Common Ground Alliance, who are dedicated to ensuring public safety, environmental protection, and the integrity of services, promote the national ‘‘Call Before You Dig’’ campaign to increase public awareness about the importance of homeowners and excavators calling 811 to find out the exact 

location of underground lines; and 

Whereas the Common Ground Alliance has designated April 

as ‘‘National Safe Digging Month’’ to increase awareness 

of safe digging practices across the United States and to 

celebrate the anniversary of 811, the national ‘‘Call Before You Dig’’ number: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) supports the goals and ideals of National 

3 Safe Digging Month; and 


srobinson on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 143 ATS 

1 (2) encourages all homeowners and excavators 

2 throughout the United States to call 811 before 

3 digging. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
#### Kenneth Jerome PACKNETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S. PATRAKIS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 09-17410.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 15, 2011.*

Filed June 30, 2011.

Kenneth Jerome Packnett, San Quentin, CA, pro se.

Michael James Quinn, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Kenneth Jerome Packnett, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, and we may affirm on any ground supported by the record. *Corales v. Bennett,*567 F.3d 554, 562 (9th Cir.2009). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Packnett’s retaliation claim, to the extent that he alleged one, because Packnett failed to raise a triable dispute as to whether he was engaged in any constitutionally protected conduct. *See Rhodes v. Robinson,*408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir.2005) (stating the elements of a retaliation claim).

Summary judgment was proper on Packnett’s conditions of confinement claim because Packnett failed to raise a triable dispute as to whether the cell block search was “conducted only for calculated harassment.” *Vigliotto v. Terry,*873 F.2d 1201, 1203 (9th Cir.1989) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Packnett’s medical treatment claim because Packnett failed to raise a triable dispute as to whether the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. *See Toguchi v. Chung,*391 F.3d 1051, 1057-58 (9th Cir.2004).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Packnett’s conspiracy claim because Packnett failed to raise a triable dispute as to any constitutional vio*463lations. *See Woodrum v. Woodward Cnty.,*866 F.2d 1121, 1126 (9th Cir.1989).

The district court did not err in staying discovery pending resolution of defendants’ qualified immunity claim. See *Crawford-El v. Britton,*528 U.S. 574, 598, 118 S.Ct. 1584, 140 L.Ed.2d 759 (1998).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying as moot Packnett’s motion for appointment of an expert witness. See *United States v. Rodriguez-Lara,*421 F.3d 932, 939 (9th Cir.2005) (refusal to appoint expert witness reviewed for abuse of discretion).

Packnett’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 34 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 295
112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. J. RES. 34

Relating to the disapproval of the President's exercise of authority to 
increase the debt limit, as submitted under section 3101A of title 31, 
                United States Code, on January 12, 2012.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 23, 2012

  Mr. McConnell (for himself, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Lee, Mr. Hatch, Mr. 
Barrasso, Mr. Cornyn, Ms. Ayotte, Mr. Moran, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Crapo, 
Mr. Rubio, Mr. Coats, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Burr, Mr. Vitter, Mr. 
 Isakson, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Kyl, Mr. McCain, Mr. Shelby, Mr. 
 Wicker, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Risch, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Inhofe, 
Mr. Grassley, Mr. Kirk, and Mr. Graham) introduced the following joint 
 resolution; which was read twice and placed on the calendar, pursuant 
                to Public Law 112-25, section 301(a)(2)

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Relating to the disapproval of the President's exercise of authority to 
increase the debt limit, as submitted under section 3101A of title 31, 
                United States Code, on January 12, 2012.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves of 
the President's exercise of authority to increase the debt limit on 
January 12, 2012, as exercised pursuant to the certification under 
section 3101A(a) of title 31, United States Code.

                                                       Calendar No. 295

112th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                             S. J. RES. 34

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

Relating to the disapproval of the President's exercise of authority to 
increase the debt limit, as submitted under section 3101A of title 31, 
                United States Code, on January 12, 2012.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            January 23, 2012

 Read twice and placed on the calendar, pursuant to Public Law 112-25, 
                           section 301(a)(2)
```
# C_2019399EN.01006202.xml

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/62

---

Order of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — Cham Holding and Bena Properties v Council

(Case T-55/19) (1)

(Action for compensation - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Freezing of funds - Lack of competence)

(2019/C 399/77)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Cham Holding Co. SA (Damascis, Syria) and Bena Properties Co. SA (Damascus, Syria) (represented by E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by A. Jaume and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicants as a result of the adoption of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2018 L 131, p. 16) and its subsequent implementing acts, and as a result of Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/806 of 17 May 2019 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2019 L 132, p. 36), in so far as those decisions concern the applicants.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Cham Holding Co. SA and Bena Properties Co. SA shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Cham Holding Co. SA and Bena Properties Co. SA shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 139, 15.4.2019.

---
Exhibit 32.2


                            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 Synovics
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended January 31,
2008 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Steven
Getraer, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

(3)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
         Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(4)      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company
         as of the dates presented and consolidated results of operations of the
         Company for the periods presented.

Dated: March 21, 2008

By:   /s/ STEVEN GETRAER
      ------------------
      Steven Getraer
      Chief Financial Officer



This certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Synovics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and will be retained by Synovics
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
# C_2019399EN.01008101.xml

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/81 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/81

---

Action brought on 25 September 2019 – Sun Stars & Sons v EUIPO – Carpathian Springs (Shape of a bottle)

(Case T-637/19)

(2019/C 399/99)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sun Stars & Sons Pte Ltd (Singapore, Singapore) (represented by: M. Maček, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Carpathian Springs SA (Vatra Dornei, Romania)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union tridimensional mark (Shape of a bottle) – Application for registration No 14 979 959

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 August 2019 in Case R 317/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred to Sun Stars & Sons Pte Ltd. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred to Sun Stars & Sons Pte Ltd.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

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

Supreme Court No. DA 21

- 0143

Jill Marie Lotter

,

Petitioner and Appellant

,

v.

State of Montana

,

Respondent and Appellee

.

GRANT OF EXTENSION

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

given an extension of time until July 9, 2021 to prepare, file and serve the

Appellant’s opening brief.

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

June 17 2021

06/17/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0143
v169164_ex4-1 -- Converted by SECPublisher 2.1.1.8, created by BCL Technologies Inc., for SEC Filing


      Exhibit
4.1
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-40094

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSÉ ANTONIO GARCIA MADRIGAL,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:00-CR-58-ALL

- - - - - - - - - -

August 22, 2001

Before KING, Chief Judge, and POLITZ and PARKER, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

José Antonio Garcia Madrigal appeals the 80-month sentence

imposed following his plea of guilty to a charge of being found

in the United States after deportation, a violation of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326. He contends that the felony conviction that resulted in

his increased sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) was an element

of the offense that should have been charged in the indictment.

Madrigal acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he
No. 01-40094

- 2 -

seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review in light of

the decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). 

Madrigal’s plea agreement included a waiver of his right to

“any appeal . . . of any error which may occur surrounding the

substance, procedure, or form of the conviction and sentencing in

this case.” We need not decide whether the issue is waived

because Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See

Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d

979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 1214 (2001). 

Madrigal’s argument is foreclosed. 

AFFIRMED.
#### In the Matter of Julio A. Rodriguez, Petitioner, v Thomas A. Coughlin, III, as Commissioner of New York State Department of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.

Motion for permission to appeal from order, treated as an application, pursuant to CPLR 5704 (a), to review an order of Supreme Court at Special Term, which denied petitioner’s application for an order to show cause to commence a proceeding against respondents pursuant to CPLR article 78. Application denied *(see, Matter of King v Gregorie,*90 AD2d 922, *lv dismissed*58 NY2d 822). Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Main, Casey and Weiss, JJ., concur. 822).