alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2012310EN.01004001.xml

| 13.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 310/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 310/40

---

Notice to economic operators — New round of requests for the suspension of the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain industrial and agricultural products

2012/C 310/06

Economic operators are informed that the Commission has received requests in accordance with the administrative arrangements foreseen in the Commission communication concerning autonomous tariff suspensions and quotas (2011/C 363/02) (1) for the July round of 2013.

1

The list of the products for which a duty suspension is requested is now available on the Commission's thematic (Europa) website on the customs union (2).

2

Economic operators are also informed that the deadline for objections against new requests to reach the Commission, via the national administrations, is 10 December 2012 which is the date of the second scheduled meeting of the Economic Tariff Questions Group.

Interested operators are advised to consult the list regularly in order to be informed on the status of the requests.

More information on the autonomous tariff suspension procedure can be found on the Europa website:

http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/customs/customs_duties/tariff_aspects/suspensions/index_en.htm

---

(1)  OJ C 363, 13.12.2011, p. 6.

1

(2)  http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/dds2/susp/susp_home.jsp?Lang=en

2

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                            8086
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       93
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  8179
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    8179
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              288
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                        7891
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      8179
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  4716
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      262
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   752
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   3702
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               3702
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      3702
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     8.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     8.16
        

</TABLE>
(No. 74-CC-589

#### Standard Photo Supply, A Division of Weiman Co., Inc., Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Department of Public Health, Respondent.

*Opinion filed April 25, 1974.*

Kahn, Fischel, Weinberg & Brusslan, Attorney for Claimant.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.
*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the

citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under

the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 4/25/96

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 95-3271

v. (D.C. No.95-3254-DES)

JAMES W. HERSHBERGER, (D. Kan.)

Defendant - Appellant.

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, McKAY and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered

submitted without oral argument.

We AFFIRM for the reasons given by the district court. The mandate shall issue

forthwith.
2

Entered for the Court

Monroe G. McKay

Circuit Judge
(No. 6653

#### James Yenerich, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Department of Corrections, Respondent.

Opinion *filed February 1, 1973.*

Edward M. Sullivan, Attorney for Claimant.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.
§ 355.19 Prehearing conferences. ( a ) The ALJ may schedule prehearing conferences as appropriate.
( b ) Upon the motion of any party, the ALJ shall schedule at least one prehearing conference at a reasonable time in advance of the hearing.
( c ) The ALJ may use prehearing conferences to discuss the following: ( 1 ) Simplification of the issues;
( 2 ) The necessity or desirability of amendments to the pleadings, including the need for a more definite statement;
( 3 ) Stipulations, admissions of fact or as to the contents and authenticity of documents;
( 4 ) Whether the parties can agree to submission of the case on a stipulated record;
( 5 ) Whether a party chooses to waive appearance at an oral hearing and to submit only documentary evidence (subject to the objection of other parties) and written argument;
( 6 ) Limitation of the number of witnesses;
( 7 ) Scheduling dates for the exchange of witness lists and of proposed exhibits;
( 8 ) Discovery;
( 9 ) The time and place for the hearing; and
( 10 ) Such other matters as may tend to expedite the fair and just disposition of the proceedings.
( d ) The ALJ may issue an order containing all matters agreed upon by the parties or ordered by the ALJ at a prehearing conference.
#### Lawrence C. AGEE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA MEDICAL BOARD, Defendant — Appellee.

No. 04-17204.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 13, 2006.*

Decided Feb. 22, 2006.

Lawrence C. Agee, Williston, VT, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

*249Kevin William Reager, Office of the California Attorney General (SAC) Department of Justice, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: FERNANDEZ, RYMER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Lawrence C. Agee appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing on res judicata grounds his action alleging the California Medical Board violated his civil rights and the Americans with Disabilities Act in suspending his medical license. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Clark v. Bear Steams & Co., Inc.,*966 F.2d 1318, 1320 (9th Cir. 1992), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the instant action because it restates claims that were raised and dismissed in a prior action for failure to prosecute. *See Western Radio Servs. Co. v. Glickman,*123 F.3d 1189, 1192 (9th Cir.1997) (doctrine of res judicata serves to bar a claim where there is an identity of claims, a final judgment on the merits, and an identity of parties); *Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc.,*244 F.3d 708, 714 (9th Cir.2001) (holding that dismissal of the prior action for failure to prosecute, because appellant failed to file an opposition to a motion to dismiss, was an adjudication on the merits under Rule 41(b)).

AFFIRMED

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
§ 302.3 Qualifying conditions. ( a ) *Basic requirements.* To qualify for benefits with respect to a benefit year, an employee: ( 1 ) Must have earned compensation in an amount equal to at least 2.5 times the amount of the monthly compensation base during his or her base year; and
( 2 ) If such employee has earned no compensation prior to such base year, he or she must have earned compensation in at least five months during his or her base year.
( b ) *Deemed service months disregarded.* For purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, service months deemed under § 210.3 of this chapter shall be disregarded.
§ 30.315 May a claimant postpone a hearing? ( a ) The FAB will entertain any reasonable request for scheduling the time and place of the hearing, but such requests should be made at the time that the hearing is requested. Scheduling is at the discretion of the FAB, and is not reviewable. In most instances, once the hearing has been scheduled and appropriate written notice has been mailed, it cannot be postponed at the claimant's request for any reason except those stated in paragraph (b) of this section, unless the FAB reviewer can reschedule the hearing on the same docket (that is, during the same hearing trip). If a request to postpone a scheduled hearing does not meet one of the tests of paragraph (b) of this section and cannot be accommodated on the same docket, or if the claimant and/or representative cancels or fails to attend a scheduled hearing, no further opportunity for a hearing will be provided. Instead, the FAB will consider the claimant's objections by means of a review of the written record. In the alternative, a teleconference may be substituted for the hearing at the discretion of the reviewer.
( b ) Where the claimant or the representative appointed by the claimant in accordance with § 30.600 of this part has a medical reason that prevents attendance at the hearing, or where the death or illness of the claimant's parent, spouse, or child prevents the claimant from attending the hearing as scheduled, a postponement may be granted in the discretion of the FAB if the claimant or the representative provides at least 24 hours notice and a reasonable explanation supporting his or her inability to attend the scheduled hearing.
( c ) At any time after requesting a hearing, the claimant can request a change to a review of the written record by making a written request to the FAB. Once such a change is made, no further opportunity for a hearing will be provided.
[71 FR 78534, Dec. 29, 2006, as amended at 84 FR 3051, Feb. 8, 2019]
Exhibit 23.2
 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
##### Table of Contents



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 Washington, D.C. 20549
 FORM 8-K
 CURRENT REPORT
Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of The Securities Exchange Act of 1934
 Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): July 8, 2011
 Harland Clarke Holdings Corp.
  Delaware
    
    333-143717
    
    84-1696500(State or other jurisdiction of
    
    (Commission
    
    (IRS Employerincorporation)
    
    File Number)
    
    Identification No.)
 10931 Laureate Drive, San Antonio, Texas
    
    78249(Address of principal executive offices)
    
    (Zip Code)
 (210) 694-8888
 Not Applicable
  o
    
    Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)o
    
    Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))




---



TABLE OF CONTENTS  Item 5.02. Departure of Directors or Certain Officers; Election of Directors; Appointment of Certain Officers; Compensatory Arrangements of Certain OfficersSIGNATURES    Table of Contents  
 Item 5.02.

Departure of Directors or Certain Officers; Election of Directors; Appointment of
Certain Officers; Compensatory Arrangements of Certain Officers.




---



##### Table of Contents



HARLAND CLARKE HOLDINGS CORP.By:
    /s/ Martin WexlerName:
    Martin WexlerTitle:
    Vice President
Exhibit
      32




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 Annual Report of Chardan North China Acquisition Corp.
      (the
“Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
      undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
      certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




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




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


April
                16, 2007
              
              /s/ Li
                ZhangLi
                ZhangChief Executive
                Officer
#### Sanitary Carpet Cleaner, Respondent, v. Reed Manufacturing Company, Appellant.

Motion granted, amending order of reversal of December 23, 1913, so as to direct final judgment in favor of defendant, instead of granting a new trial.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            Certification Pursuant to
                             18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
                             as adopted Pursuant to
                 Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

In connection with the annual report of Feminique Corporation (the "COMPANY") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the SEC on the date
hereof (the "REPORT"), I hereby certify, in my capacity as an officer of the
Company, for purposes of 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

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

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



                                      /s/ Max Khan
                                      ------------------------
                                  By: Max Khan
                                      Chief Executive Officer,
                                      Chief Financial Officer
                                      DATE: August 15, 2005
Order entered September 1 6 , 2020

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05 - 19 - 01445 - CV MONTGOMERY J. BENNETT AND EVAN LANE (VAN) SHAW , Appellant s

V. MATTHEW ZUCKER, Appelle e On Appeal from the 330th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF - 19 - 17721

ORDER Before the Court is appellants’ September 14, 2020 unopposed motion for a three

- day extension of time to file their brief

. We GRANT the moti on and ORDER the brief be filed no later than September 17, 2020.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
### §3484. Funds transfer

The Secretary may, when authorized in an appropriation Act in any fiscal year, transfer funds from one appropriation to another within the Department, except that no appropriation for any fiscal year shall be either increased or decreased pursuant to this section by more than 5 percent and no such transfer shall result in increasing any such appropriation above the amount authorized to be appropriated therefor.

(Pub. L. 96–88, title IV, §424, Oct. 17, 1979, 93 Stat. 688.)
#### Hedden Construction Company, Appellant, v. Automobile Club of America, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, with leave to plaintiff to amend complaint on payment of costs. No opinion. Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Scott and Hotchkiss, JJ.
**Exhibit 13.2**

 

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 Annual Report of Patni Computer Systems Limited (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Surjeet Singh, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

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

 

 
| Date:   February 25, 2011 |                      |
|--------------------------------|---------------------------|
|                           |                      |   |
|                           | /s/   Surjeet Singh       |   |   |
|                           |                      |   |
|                           | Surjeet   Singh           |   |
|                           | Chief   Financial Officer |   |
|                                |                           |  |  |

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 73 (Friday, April 15, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 21406]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9172]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. 10-35]


Beau Boshers, M.D.; Decision and Order

ACTION: Correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Thursday, April 7, 2011, the Drug Enforcement Administration 
published the above-titled Decision and Order, as well as the Decision 
of the Administrative Law Judge (76 FR 19401). In preparing the 
document for publication, the files were merged resulting in the 
footnotes of the Administrative Law Judge's Decision being numbered 
sequentially to follow the footnote numbers of the Decision and Order 
rather than beginning with the number 1 as they did in the ALJ's slip 
opinion.
    Therefore, this notice corrects footnotes 10 through 84 appearing 
in the Decision signed by the U.S. Administrative Law Judge to be 
footnotes 1 through 75 beginning at 76 FR 19404 under the third column.

    Dated: April 8, 2011.
Michele M. Leonhart,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011-9172 Filed 4-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
### Part A—Officers
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY ELEV

 960.56

 960.75

 960.99

 961.20

 961.39

 961.54

 961.72

 961.84

 961.95

 961.83

 961.96

 962.06

 962.17

 962.25

 962.38

 962.46

 962.56

 962.67

 962.58

 962.66

 962.71

 962.79

 962.88

 962.79

 962.93

 963.07

 963.36

 963.53

 963.62

 964.09

 1,136.2

 1,137.7

 1,139.5

 1,141.2

 1,142.7

 1,143.8

 1,145.3

 1,146.2

 1,147.1

 1,146.1

 1,147.1

 1,147.9

 1,148.8

 1,149.4

 1,150.4

 1,151.1

 1,151.9

 1,152.7

 1,152.0

 1,152.7

 1,153.0

 1,153.7

 1,154.4

 1,153.7

 1,154.8

 1,155.9

 1,158.2

 1,159.5

 1,160.2

 1,164.0

STORAGE

+1.6

+1.5

+1.9

+1.6

+1.5

+1.2

+1.4

+0.9

+0.9

-0.9

+1.0

+0.8

+0.9

+0.6

+1.0

+0.6

+0.8

+0.9

-0.7

+0.6

+0.4

+0.6

+0.7

-0.7

+1.1

+1.1

+2.3

+1.3

+0.7

+3.7

CHANGE

843

873

984

847

786

630

744

504

449

448

657

414

461

347

545

340

439

464

374

340

241

365

390

513

601

577

1,184

707

393

1,905

INFLOW

 27

 21

 14

 14

 14

 14

 14

 14

 14

 905

 138

 14

 14

 14

 14

 14

 14

 14

 718

 14

 14

 14

 14

 863

 25

 14

 14

 14

 14

 14

POWER

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

SPILL

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

OUTLET

 28

 104

 25

 3

 20

 23

 18

 15

 0

 18

 5

 3

 10

 15

 15

 8

 28

 13

 13

 8

 28

 33

 18

 8

 20

 5

 13

 15

 20

 15

C.F.S.

 .11

 .41

 .10

 .01

 .08

 .09

 .07

 .06

 .00

 .07

 .02

 .01

 .04

 .06

 .06

 .03

 .11

 .05

 .05

 .03

 .11

 .13

 .07

 .03

 .08

 .02

 .05

 .06

 .08

 .06

INCHES

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .92

 .00

 .00

 .01

 .00

 .03

 .01

 .02

 .53

 .08

 .01

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .02

 .74

 .35

 .01

 .00

PRECIP

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

NOVEMBER 2004 NEW MELONES LAKE DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: December 2, 2004

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

1000 ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS +29.3 18,365 3,019 0 0 547 2.15 2.73

ACRE-FEET +29,300 36,427 5,988 0 0 1,085

COMMENTS:

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES AND EVAPORATION.

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

POWER 5,988

SPILL 0

OUTLET

TOTAL

 0

 5,988

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

TO DATE =

 2.73

JULY 1, 2004 6.87

 1,134.6

Table 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY HIGH

 20,222

 22,057

 23,630

 25,229

 27,343

 28,239

 27,575

 23,597

 21,533

 21,340

 20,961

 22,125

 22,678

 23,774

 24,766

 26,524

 28,728

 27,252

 26,511

 25,328

 25,022

 23,513

 22,747

 19,817

 19,432

 20,650

 22,551

 23,963

 26,792

 27,011

 6,231

 5,462

 5,819

 8,215

 10,721

 11,875

 11,987

 11,123

 11,031

 11,151

 11,142

 11,094

 11,136

 10,469

 11,533

 11,949

 12,730

 11,420

 10,244

 10,062

 9,697

 9,693

 9,331

 8,822

 8,522

 8,566

 9,984

 11,223

 10,944

 9,328

 12,859

 13,647

 14,499

 16,478

 18,815

 20,059

 19,758

 18,115

 17,221

 16,364

 15,916

 15,972

 16,284

 17,156

 18,109

 19,531

 20,167

 19,036

 18,594

 17,406

 17,139

 16,958

 16,442

 15,283

 14,775

 14,591

 15,758

 16,728

 18,059

 17,827

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JUNE 2004 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: July 6, 2004

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

PORT CHICAGO BOTTOM IN SUISUN BAY