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

AUHTIN. TICXAS 78711 

July 21. 1975 

Mrs. Charles (Betty) Cleland, Opinion No. H-644 

Executive Secretary 

Texas State Board of Examiners Re: State Board of Examiners of 

of Psychologists 

108 West 15th Street, Suite 103 

Austin, Texas 78701 

Psychologists use of employees to 

screen applicants for examination. 

Dear Mrs. Cleland: 

You have requested our opinion regarding the authority of the State Board 

of Examiners of Psychologists to employ persons, including former Board members, to screen applicants for examination. 

The State Board of Examiners of Psychologists was created in 1969 by 

article 4512c, V. T. C. S., to administer the Psychologists’ Certification Act. 

It is the duty of the Board to certify as a psychologist those qualified applicants 

for certification who successfully pass the examination prescribed by the Board. 

Section 7 of article 4512c, V. T. C. S., provides in part: 

The Board may employ such other persons 

as it deems necessary or desirable to carry 

out the provisions of this Act. 

Subject to the limitations of article 4512c, sec. 6, V. T. C. S., which concerns 

the Licensing Fund, and the General Appropriations Act, (63rd Leg. , 1973, 

HB 139 Ch. III p. 122), we believe the Board is authorized to employ persons to 

assist in the performance of its duties, including the duty to determine that 

applicants for examination are qualified. But the Legislature delegated to the 

Board alone the power to determine whether applicants are qualified or not qualified to take the exammation. 

That function requires quasi-judicial fact-finding by the Board and it must 

exercise its own discretion and judgment in such matters, guided by the legislatively set standards, and may not re-delegate that power to others. While it 

may utilize investigative assistance and advice of its employee.s, the Board must 

make the final decisions itself and it will be legally responsible for the decisions 

made. See generally, Bloom v. Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists, 

- 

p. 2832 
Mrs. Charles (Betty) Cleland - Page 2 

492 S. W. 2d 460 (Tex. Sup. 1973); Krug V. Lincoln National Life Insurance Co. , 

245 F. 2d 848 (5th Cir. 1957); 2 Am. Jur. 2d, Administrative Law, 5 222; 

Attorney General Opinion H-386 (1974). 

SUMMARY 

The State Board of Examiners of Psychologists may employ persons, including former Board 

members if appropriate, to assist it in screening 

applicants for examination but it may not delegate to 

such persons any quasi-judicial functions delegated 

to the Board by the Legislature. 

Very truly yours, 

Attorney General of Texas 

APPROVED: 

Opinion Committee 

jad: 

p. 2833
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                                SUBSIDIARY LIST
                                ---------------
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
<S>                                 <C>
DePuy Finance LLC                   Corange U.K. Holdings Ltd.

DePuy Orthopadie GmbH               DePuy International (Holdings) Ltd.

De Puy A.G.                         DePuy International Ltd.

DePuy Orthopedie SA                 DePuy Joints S.A.

DePuy Italia S.r.L.                 DePuy Taiwan

DePuy Iberica, S.A.                 DePuy Australia Pty Limited

Medical Trivest SL                  DePuy Mexico S.A. De C.V.

DePuy Japan Incorporated            DePuy Canada Ltd.

DePuy Korea, Inc.                   DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc.

DePuy Far East Pte Ltd.             DePuy Orthopaedic Technologies, Inc.

DePuy GmbH                          DePuy ACE Medical Company

DePuy Olmed AB                      DePuy DuPont Orthopaedics (partnership)

DePuy Hungary                       Pamerland SCI

DePuy CZ s.r.o.                     Bioland SA

DePuy New Zealand Ltd.              Mikroland

Sanatmetal                          Memo Implants

DePuy Hong Kong Ltd.                Medinov

DePuy Medical Pte Ltd.              Landos Nederland

DePuy, S.A.                         Sushrut

Matrix Biotech, Inc.                Adker Mediequip

DePuy France/CFT France             Medinov Distribution

GAM SCI                             Landochine

Orthotim                            AM SCI

Bioland Pharma                      Landos Int.

Landos Biomechique                  Landos Italia

Landos Espana                       Landos Inc.

DePuy Overseas Trading Ltd.         Landos Orthopaedic Allemagne

DePuy Development, Inc.             Expanded Optics, Inc.

Tweedbank                           DePuy Motech, Inc.

DePuy Portugal Lta.                 Orthogenesis Italy

                                    7 Dormant Coys
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS 
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                      JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                        JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                                  406,340
<SECURITIES>                                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                         5,620,584
<ALLOWANCES>                                           (966,977)
<INVENTORY>                                             373,181
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      5,884,341
<PP&E>                                               23,987,976
<DEPRECIATION>                                       (3,561,449)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       36,397,580
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                15,162,524
<BONDS>                                               5,984,199
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                                   0
<COMMON>                                                 15,114
<OTHER-SE>                                           15,235,743
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         36,397,580
<SALES>                                              17,282,790 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     17,282,790 
<CGS>                                                13,830,020 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        13,830,020 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      7,769,493
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    2,244,595
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      (6,561,318)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         (2,099,622)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  (4,461,696)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                         (4,461,696)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                             (0.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             (0.24)
        


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3606 Considered and Passed Senate (CPS)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3606

 To extend the special immigrant nonminister religious worker program 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

           September 26 (legislative day, September 17), 2008

    Mr. Hatch introduced the following bill; which was read twice, 
              considered, read the third time, and passed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend the special immigrant nonminister religious worker program 
                        and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as ``Special Immigrant Nonminister Religious 
Worker Program Act''.

SEC. 2. SPECIAL IMMIGRANT NONMINISTER RELIGIOUS WORKER PROGRAM.

    (a) Extension.--Subclause (II) and subclause (III) of section 
101(a)(27)(C)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
1101(a)(27)(C)(ii)) are amended by striking ``October 1, 2008,'' both 
places such term appears and inserting ``March 6, 2009,''.
    (b) Regulations.--Not later than 30 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall--
            (1) issue final regulations to eliminate or reduce fraud 
        related to the granting of special immigrant status for special 
        immigrants described in subclause (II) or (III) of section 
        101(a)(27)(C)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
        U.S.C. 1101(a)(27)(C)(ii)); and
            (2) submit a certification to Congress and publish notice 
        in the Federal Register that such regulations have been issued 
        and are in effect.
    (c) Report.--Not later than March 6, 2009, the Inspector General of 
the Department of Homeland Security shall submit to Congress a report 
on the effectiveness of the regulations required by subsection (b)(1).
    (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect on the date that the Secretary of Homeland Security submits 
the certification described in subsection (b)(2) stating that the final 
regulations required by subsection (b)(1) have been issued and are in 
effect.
                                 <all>
```
BOGER v. HUMPHRIES

No. COA06-809

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Filed April 17, 2007

Certification Date May 7, 2007

Appeal from Davie (05CVS300).

Cases reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 169/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 169/2014 of 21 February 2014 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 169/2014                     

# of 21 February 2014

# establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural                           markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 21 February 2014.

*For the Commission, On behalf of the President,*                            

Jerzy Plewa                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
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 accompanying Annual Report of Enviro Voraxial
Technology, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31,
2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Alberto DiBella, 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, to the best of my knowledge, 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 fully presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


By:  /s/ Alberto DiBella
     -------------------
     Alberto DiBella
     Principal Financial Officer
     April 12, 2007
# C_2023024EN.01006201.xml

| 23.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/62

---

Action brought on 15 November 2022 — Sonasurf Internacional and Others v Commission

(Case T-723/22)

(2023/C 24/86)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicants: Sonasurf Internacional — Shipping Lda (Zona Franca da Madeira) (Funchal, Portugal), Mastshipping — Shipping, Sociedade Unipessoal Lda (Zona Franca da Madeira) (Funchal), Latin Quarter — Serviços Marítimos Internacionais Lda (Zona Franca da Madeira) (Funchal) (represented by: R. Bordalo Junqueiro, S. Fernandes de Almeida, R. F. Costa and P. G. Marques, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

| — | recognise the applicants’ legitimate interest in bringing the present action for annulment under Article 263 TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

—

recognise the applicants’ legitimate interest in bringing the present action for annulment under Article 263 TFEU;

| — | declare that the present action for annulment has been brought in due form and is admissible under Article 263 TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the present action for annulment has been brought in due form and is admissible under Article 263 TFEU;

| — | annul the contested decision pursuant to Article 264 TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision pursuant to Article 264 TFEU;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings together with the expenses incurred by the applicants. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings together with the expenses incurred by the applicants.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of their action against Commission Decision (EU) 2022/1414 of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III (notified under document C(2020) 8550) (OJ 2022 L 217, p. 49), the applicants rely on four pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-718/22, Eutelsat Madeira v Commission.

---
# Commission Regulation (EU) No 892/2013Show full title

Commission Regulation (EU) No 892/2013 of 16 September 2013 establishing a prohibition of fishing for redfish in EU and international            waters of V; international waters of XII and XIV by vessels flying the flag of France         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Regulation (EU) No 892/2013                     

# of 16 September 2013

# establishing a prohibition of fishing for redfish in EU and international waters of V; international waters of XII and XIV                        by vessels flying the flag of France                     

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring                           compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy(1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Council Regulation (EU) No 40/2013 of 21 January 2013 fixing for 2013 the fishing opportunities available in EU waters and,                              to EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are subject to international                              negotiations or agreements(2), lays down quotas for 2013.

(2)According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation                              by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for                              2013.

(3)It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

## Article 1U.K.Quota exhaustion

The fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein                     for 2013 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.                  

## Article 2U.K.Prohibitions

Fishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in                     the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited                     to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.                  

## Article 3U.K.Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 16 September 2013.

*For the Commission, On behalf of the President*,                           

Lowri Evans                            

*Director-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries*                            

## ANNEXU.K.

1

OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 23, 25.1.2013, p. 54.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR TANISYS TECHNOLOGY,
INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES AS OF AND FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THE
NOTES THERETO.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         924,690
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,455,939
<ALLOWANCES>                                   429,064
<INVENTORY>                                  3,209,183
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,892,387
<PP&E>                                       2,449,979
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,501,488
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,069,816
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,754,801
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    22,988,004
<OTHER-SE>                                (17,752,752)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,069,816
<SALES>                                     38,555,153
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            38,555,153
<CGS>                                       33,879,602
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               33,879,602
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            11,848,408
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             2,206,832
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             461,737
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (7,617,159)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (7,617,159)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (7,617,159)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.45)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.45)
        

</TABLE>
STATE v. GRACE.

No. COA07-500.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed October 2, 2007.

Certification Date October 22, 2007.

Appeal from Cumberland (03CRS50348).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. Affirmed.
* District Judge of the Southern District of Texas, sitting

by designation.

 

**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.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 97-50053

In the matter of: H.B. Halbert, Jr., M.D.,

 Debtor.

H. B. HALBERT, Jr., M.D.,

Appellant,

VERSUS

ANNE W. HALBERT,

 Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Western District of Texas

(W-96-CA-239)

October 7, 1997

Before DeMOSS and DENNIS, Circuit Judges, and ROSENTHAL*, District

Judge.

PER CURIAM:**

Appellant H.B. Halbert, Jr., M.D., claims on appeal to this

court that the district court erred in affirming the judgment of

the bankruptcy court. Appellant filed a complaint in bankruptcy
court seeking a determination that debts in favor of Appellee Anne

W. Halbert arising out of a Final Decree of Divorce were nondischargeable. The bankruptcy court held that (1) there was a

binding and enforceable contractual agreement to pay alimony, (2)

the state court judgment incorporating the alimony agreement was

not subject to collateral attack, and (3) payments due Appellee

Anne W. Halbert were alimony and support in nature and therefore a

non-dischargeable debt. The district court affirmed. 

After considering the oral arguments of counsel, the briefs of

the parties, and the record in this case, we conclude that the

district court judgment is correct. Accordingly, the judgment of

the district court is AFFIRMED.