alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# CI2021058EN.01000701.xml

| 18.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CI 58/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CI 58/7

---

Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union

(2021/C 58 I/06)

Pursuant to Article 9(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (1), the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union (2) are hereby amended as follows:

On page 413, the following explanatory note is inserted:

‘9504 40 00 Playing cards

This subheading includes typical playing cards that require an interaction between the cards themselves, such as pairing, exchanging or using and combining the cards to form words, groups of symbols or rows of numbers (for example, bridge cards, poker game cards, lexicon cards, tarot cards and phantasy playing cards). This subheading also includes memory playing cards and other similar playing cards, usually played so that the same colours, values, symbols or images have to be paired.

Other types of card games where the cards contain knowledge questions, tasks, quizzes, pictures or answers to these questions (whether or not in a set with other playing instruments, for example, a dice or an hourglass) are however not considered playing cards of this subheading. The players only have to reply to a question, fulfil a task or, for example, guess who is shown in the picture on a card and their way of playing does not require an interaction between the cards. These cards have the objective characteristics of other parlour games and are thus to be classified under CN code 9504 90 80 as other games.’

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1).

1

(2)  OJ C 119, 29.3.2019, p. 1.

2

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ricky Caldwell, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of Supreme Court, Kings County (Egitto, J.), rendered January 15, 1985, convicting him of attempted murder in the first degree (two counts), reckless endangerment in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Questions relating to the issue of identification and the credibility of the witnesses lie with the trier of fact *(see, e.g., People v Batts,*111 AD2d 761, 762; *People v Herriot,*110 AD2d 851, 852), and the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, clearly established the defendant’s identity beyond a reasonable doubt *(see, People v Malizia,*62 NY2d 755, *cert denied*469 US 932).

The defendant’s sentence was not excessive. On the facts of this case, it was proper for the defendant to receive consecutive sentences for the two attempted murder convictions *(see, People v Brathwaite,*63 NY2d 839).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved or without merit. Niehoff, J. P., Rubin, Eiber and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 21.1

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Company                                           Jurisdiction of Organization
-------                                           ----------------------------
<S>                                               <C>
SWT Finance B.V. ................................      The Netherlands
SWT Holdings B.V. ...............................      The Netherlands
Weigh-Tronix, Inc. ..............................      Delaware
Mecmesin, Inc. ..................................      California
Salter Weigh-Tronix Ltd..........................      England and Wales
Salter Housewares Holdings Ltd...................      England and Wales
Weigh-Tronix Canada, ULC.........................      Canada
Weigh-Tronix UK Ltd..............................      England and Wales
Salter Housewares Ltd............................      England and Wales
Weigh-Tronix Delaware, Inc. .....................      Delaware, USA
Berkel USA, Inc. ................................      Delaware, USA
Berkel, Inc. ....................................      Indiana, USA
Berkel Products Co. Limited......................      Canada
Avery Berkel Limited.............................      England and Wales
Avery Berkel Properties Limited..................      England and Wales
Avery Berkel Holdings Limited....................      England and Wales
Berkel (Ireland) Limited.........................      Ireland
SWT Holdings Pty Ltd.............................      Australia
Hallamshire Ltd..................................      England and Wales
Deben Systems Ltd................................      England and Wales
GWS Weighting Systems Ltd........................      England and Wales
Salter Australia.................................      Australia
W&T Avery (Malawi) Limited.......................      Malawi
GEC Avery Zimbabwe (Pvt) Limited.................      Zimbabwe
Avery Malaysia Sdn Bhd...........................      Malaysia
W&T Avery (Namibia) Limited......................      Namibia
W&T Avery (Kenya) Limited........................      Kenya
PM Services Ltd..................................      England and Wales
GEC Avery (Private) Limited......................      England and Wales
Avery Berkel S.A. ...............................      Spain
South African Scale Co (pty) Limited.............      South Africa
Avery India Limited..............................      India
Berkel AB........................................      Sweden
Berkel S.A. .....................................      France
Schember Berkel Ges mbH..........................      Germany
Berkel Deutschland GmbH..........................      Germany
Brevetti van Berkel SpA Italy Berkel Services
 B.V. ...........................................      Netherlands
Berkel Operations GmbH...........................      Germany
Cantoni S.R.L. ..................................      Italy
</TABLE>
#               G-1256, Declaration for Interpreted USCIS Interview

IMPORTANT: Do not sign the form before the interview. You and the interpreter must sign the form in the presence of the interviewing officer.

The interviewing officer uses this form to:
                  - Record the presence of an interpreter that you have provided for your USCIS interview;
                  - Document your satisfaction with the interpreter’s ability to interpret from English to your language, and from your language to English;
                  - Acknowledge that your interpreter may learn confidential information during your interview;
                  - Ensure the interpreter understands the requirements to serve as an interpreter, which includes accurately, literally, and fully interpreting for both you and the interviewing officer; and
                  - Notify you that the interviewing officer can deny permission for the interpreter to participate in the interview

## Forms and Document Downloads

Form G-1256  (PDF, 260.14 KB)

Instructions for Form G-1256  (PDF, 296.74 KB)

## Form Details

08/10/15. You can find the edition date at the bottom of the page on the form and instructions.

Dates are listed in mm/dd/yy format.

If you complete and print this form to mail it, make sure that the form edition date and page numbers are visible at the bottom of all pages and that all pages are from the same form edition. If any of the form’s pages are missing or are from a different form edition, we may reject your form.

If you need help downloading and printing forms, read our instructions. 

Bring this form with you to your scheduled domestic interview.

**IMPORTANT: Do not sign the form before the interview. You and the interpreter must sign the form in the presence of the interviewing officer.**

02/14/2020

0 / 2000To protect your privacy, please do not include any personal information in your feedback. Review our Privacy Policy.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Transgenomic, Inc. for the quarter ended June 30, 2008, I, Craig J. Tuttle, Chief Executive
Officer of Transgenomic, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:



|(1) | Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Transgenomic, Inc. for the quarter ended June 30, 2008, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Transgenomic, Inc. for the quarter ended June 30, 2008, fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Transgenomic, Inc.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ CRAIG J. TUTTLECraig J. TuttlePresident and Chief Executive Officer


Date: August 6, 2008

A signed original of the certification required by Section 906 has been provided to Transgenomic, Inc. and will be retained by Transgenomic, Inc and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.



26
#### Home Insurance and Trust Company *v.*Tennessee and Shelby County,

No. 673.

Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Tennessee.

Mr. Justice Peckham.

This case is precisely similar to the last preceding one, and must be governed by our decision in that. Judgment is therefore

*Affirmed.*
EXHIBIT 10.1
EXTENSION OF PROMISSORY NOTE

$9,000.00
Newport Beach, California
March 27, 2001

     THE UNDERSIGNED promises to pay to the order of Mezzanine Capital Ltd. at
1516 Brookhollow Drive, Suite D, Santa Ana, CA 92705, or at such other place
as the holder hereof may designate in writing, the sum of nine thousand
dollars ($9,000.00), with interest thereon at the rate of 10% per annum from
the date of the original promissory note, March 27, 2000.  Principal and
interest shall be due and payable one year from the date hereof.  This note
shall replace the promissory note for these funds originally due on March 27,
2001.

     Prepayment of this note may be made at any time without penalty.

     In the event of commencement of suit to enforce payment of this note, the
undersigned agrees to pay such additional sum as attorney's fees as the court
may adjudge reasonable.

     Saiph Corporation

     By: /s/ Eric C. Bronk
             Eric C. Bronk, President
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

# ACTION:

Notice and request for comments. 

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Small Business Administration's intentions to request approval on a new, and/or currently approved information collection. 

# DATES:

Submit comments on or before June 19, 2000. 

# ADDRESSES:

Send all comments regarding whether this information collection is necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, whether the burden estimate is accurate, and if there are ways to minimize the estimated burden and enhance the quality of the collection, to Kenneth D. Simonson, Senior Economic Advisor, Office of Advocacy, Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW, Suite 7800, Washington, DC 20416.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kenneth D. Simonson, Senior Economic Advisor, 202-205-6973 or Curtis B. Rich, Management Analyst, 202-205-7030. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

*Title:*                     “Value of Worker Training Programs to Small Business”.                 

*Form No:*                     N/A.                 

*Description of Respondents:*                     Small and Large Businesses.                 

*Annual Responses:*                     2,400.                 

*Annual Burden:*                     1,244.                 

Jacqueline White, 

Chief, Administrative Information Branch. 

[FR Doc. 00-9852 Filed 4-19-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

NO. 02-2259

BARNEY O. PADGETT, APPELLANT,

V.

R. JAMES NICHOLSON,

SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE.

Before IVERS, Chief Judge, and STEINBERG, GREENE, KASOLD, and HAGEL, Judges.

O R D E R

On April 19, 2005, in a full-Court opinion, the Court reversed in part and set aside in part the

August 8, 2002, decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, and remanded the entire matter for

further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The opinion also ordered the expedited entry of

judgment and issuance of mandate on the 10th day after the date on which the opinion was issued.

On April 21, 2005, the appellant's counsel informed the Court of the appellant's death in November

2004. Because of the death of the appellant, the expedited entry of judgment and issuance of

mandate provided for in the opinion will be revoked. 

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is 

ORDERED that the expedited entry of judgment and issuance of mandate provided for in the

opinion is revoked. See U.S. VET. APP. R. 36, 41. 

DATED: April 29, 2005 PER CURIAM.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                             211
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      163
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,518
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,005
<PP&E>                                             487
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (144)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  20,155
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,490
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            15
<OTHER-SE>                                      20,155
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    20,155
<SALES>                                          3,973
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,973
<CGS>                                            2,816
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,248
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  91
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,177)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,177)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,177)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.17)


</TABLE>
# Direct Filing Addresses for Form I-821D, Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals

03/30/2023

0 / 2000To protect your privacy, please do not include any personal information in your feedback. Review our Privacy Policy.
UNITED STATES COURT OF VETERANS APPEALS

MISC. NO. 4-99

IN RE: COMMITTEE ON ADMISSION AND PRACTICE

Before NEBEKER, Chief Judge, and KRAMER, FARLEY,

HOLDAWAY, IVERS, STEINBERG, and GREENE, Judges

O R D E R

It is ORDERED that the composition of the Court's Committee on Admission and Practice

is changed as follows:

Melanie G. Dorsey, Esq., is appointed as a member of the Committee for a term expiring

November 19, 2002, vice Robert L. Gilliat, Esq., whose term has expired.

DATED: November 16, 1999 BY THE COURT:

FRANK Q. NEBEKER

Chief Judge
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                     JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                       MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                                      3,337
<SECURITIES>                                                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                                              30,373
<ALLOWANCES>                                                1,235
<INVENTORY>                                                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                           38,978
<PP&E>                                                    167,198
<DEPRECIATION>                                             42,595
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                            164,804
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      40,609
<BONDS>                                                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                           0
<PREFERRED>                                                     0
<COMMON>                                                   72,361
<OTHER-SE>                                                  5,574
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                              164,804
<SALES>                                                    65,832
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                           65,832
<CGS>                                                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                              60,908
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                             (54)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                            731
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                             4,247
<INCOME-TAX>                                                1,715
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                         2,532
<DISCONTINUED>                                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                 0
<CHANGES>                                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                                2,532
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                0.24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                0.24
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

NO. 07-1899

EDWARD J. MOORE, PETITONER,

V. 

JAMES B. PEAKE, M.D.,

SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, RESPONDENT.

Before HAGEL, MOORMAN, and SCHOELEN, Judges.

O R D E R

On July 13, 2007, Edward J. Moore, who is self-represented, filed a petition for extraordinary

relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus, requesting that the Court order the Board of Veterans'

Appeals (Board) to remove Disabled American Veterans as his representative and allow him to

represent himself in an appeal before the Board for his claim for an increased rating for his serviceconnected bilateral knee disability and for an earlier effective date for the award of 100% disability

rating for schizoaffective disorder. On June 5, 2007, and August 20, 2007, the Board issued letters

denying Mr. Moore's request to represent himself before the Board. 

On July 23, 2008, the Secretary filed a motion to dismiss Mr. Moore's petition. In his

motion, the Secretary asserts that, on July 16, 2008, the Board issued a letter granting Mr. Moore's

request to represent himself. A copy of this letter is attached to the Secretary's motion. The

Secretary also filed a motion to stay proceedings, which this Court granted on July 29, 2008. On

July 28, 2008, Mr. Moore filed an amended brief.

This Court has the authority to issue extraordinary writs in aid of its jurisdiction pursuant to

the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). See Cox v. West, 149 F.3d 1360, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

However, "[t]he remedy of mandamus is a drastic one, to be invoked only in extraordinary

situations." Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). Accordingly, three conditions must

be met before the Court may issue a writ: (1) The petitioner must demonstrate that he lacks adequate

alternative means to obtain the desired relief, thus ensuring that the writ is not used as a substitute

for the appeals process; (2) the petitioner must demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to the writ;

and (3) the Court must be convinced, given the circumstances, that the issuance of the writ is

warranted. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004). 

This Court has adopted the case-or-controversy jurisdictional requirements imposed by

Article III of the U.S. Constitution. Aronson v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 153, 155 (1994). Where all relief

sought by a petition for extraordinary relief has been afforded, the petition is moot. See Chandler

v. Brown, 10 Vet.App. 175, 177 (1997) (per curiam order); Thomas v. Brown, 9 Vet.App. 269, 270
2

(1996) (per curiam order). Here, the petitioner has obtained the relief sought, i.e., the Board has

granted the petitioner's request to represent himself. Accordingly, the petition is now moot, and the

Court will dismiss the petition. See Thomas, supra.

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED that the Court's July 29, 2008, stay is lifted. It is further 

ORDERED that the Secretary's motion to dismiss Mr. Moore's petition is granted, and the

petition is DISMISSED as moot. 

DATED: August 26, 2008 PER CURIAM.