alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### THE GOVERNMENT OF GUAM, Appellee v. EUSEBIO G. LAGPACAN, Appellant

Criminal No. 30-A

District Court of Guam Appellate Division

January 3, 1964

*391
      *Counsel for Appellee:*Harold W. Burnett, *Attorney General,*and John P. Baker, *Deputy Island Attorney*

*Counsel for Appellant:*E. B. Crain and Bamon V. Diaz

Before SHRIVER, *Judge*of the District Court of Guam; FURBER, *Chief Justice*of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands; PEREZ, *Chief Judge*of the Island Court of Guam

PER CURIAM

OPINION

Oral argument has been waived. The government of Guam has filed no brief. This could be construed as a confession of error. The appellant was charged in the Island Court with the offense of battery in violation of § 242 of the Penal Code of Guam. He was found not guilty of battery but guilty of the offense of disturbing the peace, an offense with which he was not charged.

Rule 5(a) of the criminal rules of the Island Court provides that the information shall contain a plain, concise and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged. Allegations made in one count may be incorporated by reference in another count. Rule 6(a) provides that two or more offenses may be charged in the same information in a separate count for each offense if the offenses charged are of the same or similar character or are based on the same act or transaction or on two or more acts or transactions committed together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan. The appellant was charged with battery and acquitted. If the Government wished to charge a breach of the peace it could have done so in a separate count of the same information. It did not do so.

Reversed and remanded for dismissal.
MICHAEL STEVE COX, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN 

AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WHITE PINE, 

Respondent. 

MICHAEL STEVE COX, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN 

AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WHITE PINE, 

Respondent. 

No. 62079 

No. 62080 

ORDER DENYING WRIT PETITIONS 

These are seven original proper person petitions for 

extraordinary relief. The petitions are not consolidated. 

Having considered these petitions and supporting documents, 

we conclude that petitioner's arguments lack merit and that our 

intervention by way of extraordinary relief is not warranted. Accordingly, 

we deny the petitions. NRAP 21(b)(1); NRAP 21(c). 

Additionally, as demonstrated by the this order, petitioner has 

filed numerous meritless proper person petitions in this court seeking 

extraordinary writ relief and has further filed a number of similarly 

meritless appeals in this court. See Cox v. McDaniel, Docket No. 60056, 

Cox v. McDaniel, Docket No. 60151, Cox v. Bannister, Docket No. 60637, 

Cox v. State, Docket No. 61322. We caution appellant that continued filing 

of such meritless petitions and appeals may result in restrictions on his 

ability to file papers in this court in forma pauperis. See Jordan v. State, 

Dept. of Motor Vehicles & Pub. Safety, 121 Nev. 44, 110 P.3d 30 (2005), 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) I947A • 

2 
abrogated on other grounds by Buzz Stew, LLC v. City of N. Las Vegas, 124 

Nev. 224, 181 P.3d 670 (2008). 

It is so ORDERED.' 

"7114-'t 

Hardesty 

Parraguirre 

Hon. James Todd Russell, District Judge 

Michael Steve Cox 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Carson City Clerk 

White Pine County Clerk 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

'In each of these writ petitions, this court has received petitioner's 

requests for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We direct the clerk of this 

court to file the May 17, 2011, and the June 28, 2011, motions in Docket 

No. 58292; the March 19, 2012, motion in Docket No. 60404; the March 19, 

2012, motion in Docket No. 60406; the March 19, 2012, motion in Docket 

No. 60407; the March 19, 2012, motion in Docket No. 60409; the November 

20, 2012, motion in Docket No. 62079; and the November 20, 2012, motion 

in Docket No. 62080. Because petitioner was granted leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis in each of these writ petitions, no action is required on 

these motions. 

CC: 

3
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-QSB of Quotemedia.com, Inc. (the Company) for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Keith J. Randall, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to my best knowledge and belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|    |  |                        
|--- |  | -----------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Keith J. Randall   
|    |  | Keith J. Randall       
|    |  | Chief Financial Officer
|    |  | July 30, 2004
### §1104. Membership of Commission

#### (a) Selection

The Commission shall consist of six members, of whom three shall be the United States members and three shall be the Canadian members. The United States members shall be three persons appointed by the President, of whom one shall be selected from nominations which may be made by the Governor of the State of Maine. Alternates to United States members shall be appointed in the same manner as the members themselves. The United States members and their alternates shall hold office at the pleasure of the President. A vacancy among the United States members of the Commission or their alternates shall be filled in the same manner in which the original appointment was made. An alternate shall, in the absence of the member of the Commission for whom he is alternate, attend meetings of the Commission and act and vote in the place and instead of that member of the Commission.

#### (b) Chairman and Vice Chairman

The Commission shall elect a Chairman and a Vice Chairman from among its members, each of whom shall hold office for a term of two years. The post of Chairman shall be filled for alternate terms by a Canadian and by a United States member. The post of Vice Chairman shall be filled by a Canadian member if the post of Chairman is held by a United States member, and by a United States member if the post of Chairman is held by a Canadian member. In the event of a vacancy in the office of Chairman or Vice Chairman within the two-year term, the vacancy shall be filled for the remainder of the term by special election in accordance with the foregoing requirements. The Vice Chairman shall act as Chairman in the absence of the Chairman.

#### (c) Quorum

Four members of the Commission shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, but the affirmative votes of at least two United States members, or their alternates, and at least two Canadian members, or their alternates, shall be required for any decision to be made by the Commission.

(Pub. L. 88–363, §5, July 7, 1964, 78 Stat. 300.)
Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________________

No. 96-40057

(Summary Calendar)

_________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL EDMOND SWISHER,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________________________

Appeal from United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

(6:90-CR-71-4)

__________________________________________________

July 5, 1996

Before JOLLY, JONES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Swisher appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to reduce sentence pursuant to 18

U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(2). A district court has discretion concerning whether to reduce a sentence under

§3582(c)(2). United States v. Shaw, 30 F.3d 26, 28-29 (5th Cir. 1994). The district court’s factual

findings in a proceeding under §3582 are reviewed for clear error. United States v. Mimms, 43 F.3d

217, 220 (5th Cir. 1995). The district court found that Swisher’s conduct clearly involved the

unlawful manufacture of a controlled substance because he was arrested at a residence where both

precursor chemicals and lab equipment were present. With reference to sentencing, a defendant is

accountable for all acts and omissions committed, aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced,
2

procured, or willfullycaused. U.S.S.G. §1B1.3(a)(1)(A). Therefore, although Swisher was convicted

for possession of a listed chemical with knowledge that it would be used to manufacture a controlled

substance, 21 U.S.C. § 841(d)(2), the circumstances of his offense necessarily indicated that he was

involved in the unlawful manufacture of a controlled substance. Thus, it was within the district

court’s discretion to deny Swisher’s motion to reduce his sentence because the application of

U.S.S.G. §2D1.11(c) would preclude reduction ofthe sentence. As the district court did not commit

clear error in denying Swisher’s motion, that decision is AFFIRMED.
**NOTICE**

The versions of the Service Bulletins attached to the FAA memorandum, dated December 20, 2012, are not included in docket FAA - 201 2 - 0002 , because they are draft versions and not issued versions.
EXHIBIT 23.2





                CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS 


   We hereby consent (a) to the inclusion in the Annual Report
on Form 10-K of Global Marine Inc. for the year ended December
31, 1995, of our reports, dated February 8, 1996, February 8,
1995 and February 7, 1994, on our estimates of proved oil and gas
reserves for the years ended December 31, 1995, 1994 and 1993,
respectively, which reports are included in said Annual Report on
Form 10-K as Exhibits 99.1, 99.2 and 99.3 thereto, and (b) to the
incorporation by reference of our said reports into (i) the
prospectus constituting part of the Company's Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Registration Nos. 33-32088, 33-40961 and
33-63326), respectively, for the Global Marine Inc. 1989 Stock
Option and Incentive Plan, (ii) the prospectus constituting part
of the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Registration
No. 33-40266) for the Global Marine Savings Incentive Plan, (iii)
the prospectus constituting part of the Company's Registration
Statement on Form S-8  (Registration No. 33-40961) for the Global
Marine Inc. 1990 Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan, (iv)
the prospectus constituting part of the Company's Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (Registration No. 33-57691) for the Global
Marine Inc. 1994 Non-Employee Stock Option and Incentive Plan,
and (v) the prospectus constituting part of the Company's
Registration Statement on Form S-3 (Registration No. 33-58577)
for the proposed offering of up to $75,000,000 of debt
securities, preferred stock and/or common stock.  This consent is
given provided that all references to Ryder Scott Company
Petroleum Engineers remain unchanged from those contained in the
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Global Marine Inc. for the year
ended December 31, 1995.




                                                    /s/ Ryder Scott Company
                                                        Petroleum Engineers

                                                    Ryder Scott Company
                                                    Petroleum Engineers


Houston, Texas
February 28, 1996
June 8, 2015 

Mr. Jonathan Rupprecht 

Rupprecht Law, P.A. 

324 Datura Street, Suite 200 

West Palm Beach, FL 33401 

Dear Mr. Rupprecht: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

§§ 61.23(a) and (c), 61.101(e)(4) and (5), 61.112(a), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a)(1), 

91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1), and 2, and 91.417(a) and (b). of Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your request and what you should 

do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your March 26, 2015, exemption request on behalf of Mechanikids, LLC dba Red 

Raptor into the public docket (No. FAA−2015−0818), but we are unable to process your 

request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of 

§ 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of 

the following: 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
### §§27 to 29. Repealed. June 25, 1948, ch. 646, §39, 62 Stat. 992, eff. Sept. 1, 1948

Section 27, acts May 7, 1894, ch. 72, §5, 28 Stat. 74; Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §291, 36 Stat. 1167; June 28, 1938, ch. 778, §1, 52 Stat. 1213, related to jurisdiction and powers of commissioner [now magistrate judges]. See sections 131, 631, and 632 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.

Section 28, act May 7, 1894, ch. 72, §6, 28 Stat. 75, related to deputy marshals. See section 562 of Title 28.

Section 29, acts May 7, 1894, ch. 72, §7, 28 Stat. 75; Apr. 17, 1900, ch. 192, §1, 31 Stat. 133; Mar. 4, 1923, ch. 295, 42 Stat. 1560, related to compensation of commissioners [now magistrate judges], marshals, and United States attorneys. See sections 548, 571, 572, and 634 of Title 28.
§ 367.1880 Account 188, Research, development, or demonstration expenditures. ( a ) This account must be charged with the cost of all expenditures coming within the meaning of research, development and demonstration (RD&D) of this Uniform System of Accounts (*See* Definitions § 367.1(a)(40)), except those expenditures properly chargeable to account 107, Construction work in progress (§ 367.1070).
( b ) Costs that are minor or of a general or recurring nature must be transferred from this account to the appropriate operating expense function or, if the costs are common to the overall operations or cannot be feasibly allocated to the various operating accounts, then the costs must be recorded in account 930.2, Miscellaneous general expenses (§ 367.9302).
( c ) In certain instances, a service company may incur large and significant research, development, and demonstration expenditures that are nonrecurring and that would distort the annual research, development, and demonstration charges for the period. In such a case, the portion of such amounts that causes the distortion may be amortized to the appropriate operating expense account over a period not to exceed five years, unless otherwise authorized by the Commission.
( d ) The entries in this account must be maintained so as to show separately each project along with complete detail of the nature and purpose of the research, development, and demonstration project together with the related costs.
Electronically Filed 

Supreme Court 

SCWC-29603 

29-APR-2011 

10:49 AM 

SCWC-29603
 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
 

KENNETH MATHISON, Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant,
 

vs.
 

STATE OF HAWAI'I, Respondent/Defendant-Appellee.
 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
 

(ICA NO. 29603; CR. NO. 93-473)
 

ORDER VACATING ORDER DISMISSING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF
 

CERTIORARI AS UNTIMELY FILED ON APRIL 4, 2011
 1
 (By: Nakayama, J., for the court )

The Order Dismissing Application for Writ of Certiorari 

as Untimely filed on April 4, 2011, is hereby vacated. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, April 29, 2011. 

FOR THE COURT:
 

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama 


Associate Justice
 

1 Considered by: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, Duffy and McKenna,
 

JJ.
# C_2013063EN.01000501.xml

| 2.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/5

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 January 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Haarlem — Netherlands) — Hewlett-Packard Europe BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane West, kantoor Hoofddorp

(Case C-361/11) (1)

1

(Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff classification - Multifunctional printers combining a laser printing module and a scanning module, with a copying function - CN code 8443 31 91 - Validity of Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008)

2013/C 63/06

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Rechtbank Haarlem

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hewlett-Packard Europe BV

Applicant:

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane West, kantoor Hoofddorp

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank Haarlem — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification of multifunctional printers consisting of the assembled combination of three units (printer, scanner and photocopier) — Classification, prior to 1 January 2007, under subheading 8471 60 20 of the Combined Nomenclature, with resulting exemption from customs duties, by reason of application of the Court’s judgment in Joined Cases C-362/07 and C-363/07 Kip Europe and Others [2008] ECR I-9489 — Validity of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2008 L 291, p. 1)

Kip Europe and Others

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Consideration of the question raised has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in so far as it classifies under CN code 8443 31 91 of the Combined Nomenclature, contained in Annex I to Regulation No 2568/87, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 254/2000 of 31 January 2000, multifunctional printers, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, combining a laser printing module and a scanning module, with a copying function, released for free circulation in April 2009.

---

(1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.

1

---
Appendix A.1

VISTAS MOU 

(signed copy)

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation 

Division of Air Pollution Control 

9th Floor L&C Annex 

401 Church Street 

Nashville, TN 37243

Regional Haze SIP for TN Class I Areas

Appendix A.1 - 1

January 18, 2008
Regional Haze SIP for TN Class I Areas

Appendix A.1 - 2

January 18, 2008
Regional Haze SIP for TN Class I Areas

Appendix A.1 - 3

January 18, 2008
Regional Haze SIP for TN Class I Areas

Appendix A.1 - 4

January 18, 2008
Regional Haze SIP for TN Class I Areas

Appendix A.1 - 5

January 18, 2008
Regional Haze SIP for TN Class I Areas

Appendix A.1 - 6

January 18, 2008
§ 4.25 Findings. ( a ) *Commission determination.* Final action by the Commission will be in the form of an order served upon all parties to the proceeding. One copy of the order shall be furnished to the Secretary of Treasury by the Commission.
( b ) *Adjustment to licensee's books.* The licensee's books of account for the project shall be adjusted to conform to the actual legitimate cost as revised by the order of the Commission. These adjustments and the project may be audited by Commission representatives, as scheduled.
[Order 53, 44 FR 61949, Oct. 29, 1979]
### §1727. National service educational awards

#### (a) Educational benefits and awards

If a participant in the Public Lands Corps or a resource assistant also serves in an approved national service position designated under subtitle C of title I of the National and Community Service Act of 1990 [42 U.S.C. 12571 et seq.], the participant or resource assistant shall be eligible for a national service educational award in the manner prescribed in subtitle D of such title [42 U.S.C. 12601 et seq.] upon successfully complying with the requirements for the award. The period during which the national service educational award may be used, the purposes for which the award may be used, and the amount of the award shall be determined as provided under such subtitle.

#### (b) Forbearance in collection of Stafford loans

For purposes of section 1078 of title 20, in the case of borrowers who are either participants in the Corps or resource assistants, upon written request, a lender shall grant a borrower forbearance on such terms as are otherwise consistent with the regulations of the Secretary of Education, during periods in which the borrower is serving as such a participant or a resource assistant.

(Pub. L. 91–378, title II, §208, as added Pub. L. 103–82, title I, §105(6), Sept. 21, 1993, 107 Stat. 853.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The National and Community Service Act of 1990, referred to in subsec. (a), is Pub. L. 101–610, Nov. 16, 1990, 104 Stat. 3127. Subtitles C and D of title I of the Act are classified generally to divisions C (§12571 et seq.) and D (§12601 et seq.), respectively, of subchapter I of chapter 129 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 12501 of Title 42 and Tables.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 1, 1993, see section 123 of Pub. L. 103–82, set out as an Effective Date of 1993 Amendment note under section 1701 of this title.
---

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

The undersigned, Chun Lu, the Chief Executive Officer of TEC
TECHNOLOGY, INC. (the Company), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:

1.     The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended March 31, 2011 (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.     Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this
statement this 20th day of May, 2011.

/s/ Chun
LuChun Lu Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive
Officer)

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

The forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being
filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the
Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general
incorporation language in such filing.

---