alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(No. 1125

Claimant awarded $41.66.)

#### Frank E. Arkuszewski, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed March 10, 1927.*

Fees & *salaries*— when *award will he made.*This ease is controlled by the decision of the court in *Blasi*v. *State, supra.*

Harry Smitz, for claimant.

Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Merrill F. Wehmhoff, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

Frank E. Arkuszewski presents a claim against the State on account of a deficiency in salary, allotted to the chief in*308spector in the Division of Private Employment Agencies in' the Department of Labor for deputy hire, said claimant being a deputy in said service. It appears that the General Assembly in making the appropriation for the salaries in question, did not take into consideration that the law enacted contains a provision as follows: “If the deputy inspector has served or hereafter serves more than one year, $100 shall be added to his salary for each year of service until a maximum salary of $3,000 is reached,” and that no allowance for such increase in salary is made in the law.

The Attorney General of the State of Illinois has filed a demurrer, which is sustained, as a matter of law.

George B. Arnold, Director of Labor of the State of Illinois, has recommended that this deficiency be awarded to the employee.

We accordingly award to the claimant the sum of $41.66.
Exhibit
31.1





Certification
of Chief Executive Officer


pursuant
to Section 302 of the


Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002





I, W.
Bruce Comer III, certify that:





1. I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Allegro Biodiesel
Corporation;





2. Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report;





3. Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;





4. I am
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant
and have:





(a)
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;





(b)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and





(c)
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and





5. I have
disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the
registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):





(a) All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and





(b) Any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial
reporting.




Date:
      May 14, 2008
            /s/
      W. Bruce Comer
      IIISignatureName:
      W. Bruce Comer IIITitle:
      Chief Executive Officer
              (Principal
      Executive Officer and Principal
              Financial
      and Accounting Officer)
[if !vml]>[endif]>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
You havereached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC)Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC.Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of catalogingand locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications.  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the eventthat publications are no longer available from the original publishing agencysite. (Historical purposes)
**Title:****Internationalagriculture and trade. Europe [electronic resource]**** 
SuDoc:A 93.29/2-9:
ItemNumber: 0078-A (online)
CGPsystem Number: 000569805
 
 
1995- preliminary07191995.pdfpreliminary07191995.txtwrs95-4f.pdfwrs95-4f.txt
1996- WRS-02-05-1996_Europe.zipWRS-04-24-1996_Europe.pdfWRS-04-24-1996_Europe.txtWRS-12-1996_Europe.pdfWRS-12-1996_Europe.txt

1997- WRS-07-09-1997_Europe.pdfWRS-07-09-1997_Europe.txtWRS-07-18-1997_Europe.pdfWRS-07-18-1997_Europe.txtWRS-12-19-1997_Europe.pdfWRS-12-19-1997_Europe.txt

1999- WRS-10-21-1999_Europe.pdf 
 **
----

Notification by the Republic of Estonia concerning visa reciprocity (1)

(2005/C 327/02)

The Permanent Representation of the Republic of Estonia to the European Union presents its compliments to the Council of the European Union and to the European Commission and has the honour of notifying that, pursuant to Article 1(4)(f) of Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 of 15 March 2001, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 851/2005 of 2 June 2005, the Republic of Panama, by his note of 21 September 2005, has announced that according to the Government decision of the Republic of Panama, since 6 June 2005 Estonian citizens will not require a visa to enter the country.

The Permanent Representation of the Republic of Estonia to the European Union avails itself of this opportunity to assure the Council of the European Union and the European Commission of its highest consideration.

----

(1)  This notification is published in conformity with Article 1(4)(f) of Council Regulation (EC) No 851/2005 of 2 June 2005 (OJ L 141, 4.6.2005, p. 3) amending Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 (OJ L 81, 21.3.2001, p. 1).

----
Docket No. FAA - 2016 - 5044 Dir ID 2014 - NM - 166 - AD
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 1400** 

In re: TIMOTHY RAY ELEY , Petitioner
.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus . ( 1:13

- cv - 00399

- LMB

- TRJ )

Submitted : July 11, 2014 Decided: August 4, 2014

Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion
. Timothy Ray Eley, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Timothy Ray Eley petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order to compel his former counsel, an assistant public defender for the City of Portsmouth, to file an affidavit

on Eley’ s behalf . We conclude that Eley is not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U . S
. Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976) ; United States v. Moussaoui , 333 F.3d 509, 516

- 17 (4th Cir. 2003) . Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner ha s a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass ’ n , 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988)
. To the extent that Eley seeks to compel his counsel to act in his official capacity, we do not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against state officials
. Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg Cnty. , 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969)
. To the extent that Eley seeks to compel his counsel to act in any other capacity, his request is beyond the scope of mandamus relief. See In re Braxton , 258 F.3d 250, 261 (4th Cir. 2001) ( providing that party seeking writ of mandamus must establish, inter alia , that requested act “ is an official act or duty ” ).3 The relief sought by Eley is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant le ave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional proce ss.

PETITION DENIED
#### Dorothy D. di Frasso, Respondent, v. Fred R. Angevine, Appellant.

Order unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements, with leave to the defendant to answer within ten days after service of the order, with notice of entry thereof, on payment of said costs. No opinion. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Yan Yoorhis and Shientag, JJ.
#### § 147.100 What does this part do?

This part carries out the portion of the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 (41 U.S.C. 701 *et seq.,* as amended) that applies to grants. It also applies the provisions of the Act to cooperative agreements and other financial assistance awards, as a matter of Federal Government policy.
NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

61 Forsyth Street SW

Atlanta GA 30303

Web Site: www.nrc.gov/OPA

No. II-00-16 April 11, 2000

CONTACT: Ken Clark (404)562-4416/e-mail: kmc2@nrc.gov

Roger D. Hannah (404)562-4417/e-mail: rdh1@nrc.gov

NOTE TO EDITORS:

NRC CHAIRMAN TO HOLD NEWS CONFERENCE ON THURSDAY, APRIL 13

Atlanta Reporters Invited To View Via Teleconference At Atlanta Regional Office

Editors/Assignment Editors:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Richard A. Meserve will hold a news conference at

11:00 a.m. (Edt) on Thursday, April 13 to discuss current NRC initiatives. The news conference will

be held at NRC headquarters in Rockville, Maryland, but will be available to interested observers in

other parts of the United States via teleconference to the agency’s regional offices.

Atlanta news reporters are invited to view the news conference while it is in progress via

special teleconference arrangements at the NRC regional office, located in the Atlanta Federal

Center at 61 Forsyth Street, S. W.

Reporters who plan to attend are asked to notify agency representatives at the above telephone

numbers or internet addresses. Attendees should come to the 24th floor and sign in at least ten minutes

prior to 11 a.m. at the NRC reception desk.

##
#### Associates Discount Corporation, Appellant, v. Davis Motor Sales, Respondent.

Memorandum: The plaintiff and defendant each claim the ownership and to be entitled to the possession of an automobile. The car was sold by Lackawanna Motor Sales to one George Kozachuk on October 28, 1946, who on that day executed and delivered to Lackawanna Motor Sales a conditional sales contract and promissory note to cover the unpaid balance of the purchase price. On the same day, the note and contract were transferred and assigned to the plaintiff for value. The record is not clear as to the time but that day, or shortly thereafter, Lackawanna Motor Sales delivered to Helen Kozachuk, wife of the purchaser, a certificate purporting to show that she was the owner of the car and with that evidence of alleged ownership, she had the car registered in her name. The contract of conditional sale was filed on November 15, 1946. On November 23, 1946, Helen Kozachuk sold the car for cash to the defendant from whom it was recovered in replevin by the plaintiff. The City Court of Buffalo gave judgment in favor of the defendant which judgment was affirmed by Special Term. The defendant claims to be a purchaser in good faith for value and without notice and relies upon sections 65 and 41 of the Personal Property Law. We think the defendant’s position cannot be maintained. The wife was not the buyer of the car. She was no party to the sale to her husband and was in no way mentioned in the conditional sale contract and was not obligated in any manner for the payment of the purchase price. Section 65 of the Personal Property Law provides no protection to a purchaser of chattels from persons other than the conditional vendee. Moreover, the contract was on file *746eight days prior to the purchase by the defendant and was notice to it of the reservation of title in the plaintiff. The statute does not require the filing of the contract at any particular time. The provision for filing within ten days after the making of the conditional sale has no application here since the filing was made prior to the purchase by defendant. It was not established that the plaintiff, as assignee of the contract, had knowledge of or consented to the issuance by Lackawanna Motor Sales of a certificate of ownership to one other than the purchaser and the plaintiff is not bound by the wrongful act of its assignor. Section 41 of the Personal Property Law has no application to the sale of chattels. All concur. (The judgment and order affirm a judgment of the Buffalo City Court in favor of defendant in an action in replevin.) Present — Taylor, P. J., Love, Vaughan, Kimball and Piper, JJ.
----

CALL FOR PROPOSALS — DG EAC No 47/05

Exchange of good practice in youth work between Europe and Africa, the Caribbean, Pacific (ACP), Asia, Latin America

YOUTH programme

Action 5.1.2. Support measures with Partner Countries

(2005/C 320/08)

1.   Objectives and description

This Call for proposal aims at supporting projects which promote an exchange of experience and good practice in the field of youth between the European Union, candidate countries, EFTA/EEA countries and Africa, the Caribbean, Pacific (ACP), Asia, Latin America.

The general objectives of these projects shall be to contribute to the development of youth policies and youth work, and of the voluntary sector, as well as to capacity-building and leadership development for youth organisations/structures in the countries concerned.

The specific objectives of the projects should address the needs of the partners in Africa, the Caribbean, Pacific (ACP), Asia and Latin America and shall be:

Projects may focus on a wide range of themes relevant for the partners involved in the project, including cultural diversity and tolerance, youth participation and information, promotion and recognition of non-formal learning and innovation in youth work.

2.   Eligible applicants

Applicants must be non-profit making bodies legally established in one of the following countries:

Projects have to involve organisations or other legally established bodies from at least four countries (including the applicant). These have to include at least two Programme countries of the YOUTH programme, of which a minimum of one is an EU Member State, and at least two Partner Countries from ACP/Asia/Latin America.

3.   Budget and project duration

The total provisional budget earmarked for the co-financing of projects amounts to EUR 1 000 000. The financial contribution from the Commission cannot exceed 80 % of the total eligible project costs. The maximum grant cannot exceed EUR 100 000 per project.

Projects must start between 1 November 2006 and 31 December 2006. They must last between 6 and 12 months, involving one major activity including preparation and follow-up, or a number of activities/events.

4.   Deadline

Applications must be sent to the Commission no later than 30 June 2006 (as per postmark). Only proposals submitted by that date will be considered.

5.   Further information

The full text of the Call for proposals and the application forms are available on the following website:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/youth/call/index_en.html.

Applications must comply with the requirements set out in the full text and be submitted using the form provided.

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

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          14,787
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                14,787
<PP&E>                                     138,566,663
<DEPRECIATION>                              95,539,908
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              43,041,542
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           62,851
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  42,978,691
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                43,041,542
<SALES>                                      7,026,665
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,047,869
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  314,676
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              6,733,193
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 6,733,193
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.69
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.69


</TABLE>
----

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 October 2005 — Herrero Romeu v Commission

(Case T-298/02) (1)

(Officials - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance - Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Work done for another State - Meaning of habitual residence - Statement of grounds - Principle of equal treatment)

(2005/C 330/42)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant(s): Anna Herrero Romeu (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier, J. Guillem Carrau, D. Domínguez Pérez and A. Sayagués Torres, lawyers)

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall, Agent, and by J. Rivas-Andrés and J. Gutiérrez Gisbert, lawyers)

Application for

annulment of the Commission's decision of 10 June 2002 refusing to pay the applicant the expatriation allowance under Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities and the allowances associated therewith

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

----

(1)OJ C 289, 23.11.2002.

----
### §997. Annual report

The Commission shall report annually to the Judicial Conference of the United States, the Congress, and the President of the United States on the activities of the Commission.

(Added Pub. L. 98–473, title II, §217(a), Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2026.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 12, 1984, see section 235(a)(1)(B)(i) of Pub. L. 98–473, set out as an Effective Date; Savings Provision note under section 3551 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure.

#### Termination of Reporting Requirements

For termination, effective May 15, 2000, of provisions in this section relating to requirement to report annually to Congress, see section 3003 of Pub. L. 104–66, as amended, set out as a note under section 1113 of Title 31, Money and Finance, and page 13 of House Document No. 103–7.
#### ROMANTIC ADVENTURES, a division of HCH Corporation Inc.; Craig Harris; George Clinton; Tom Harris; Employee # 1; Employee # 2, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Randy ROE, Individually and as Deputy Sheriff of Rankin County, Mississippi; Ronnie Pennington, Individually and as Sheriff of Rankin County, Mississippi, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 05-60229.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided March 13, 2006.

Shirley S. Payne, Horn *&*Payne, Madison, MS, Christopher A. Tabb, Brandon, MS, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Janet D. McMurtray, Adams & Reese, Jackson, MS, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

After reviewing the briefs and hearing oral argument from the parties, we are convinced that the district court did not err in any respect and consequently affirm the judgment essentially for the reasons the court articulated in its thorough opinion. AFFIRMED. *See*5th Cm R. 47.6.

*

 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.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Philip Gay,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Grill Concepts, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 28, 2008 fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Grill
Concepts, Inc.



By:

/s/ Philip GayName:

Philip GayTitle:

CEO and Principal Executive OfficerNovember 12, 2008