alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2015066EN.01002002.xml

| 11.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 66/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 66/20

---

Corrigendum to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 477/2014 of 12 May 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 137 of 12 May 2014
  )

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 137 of 12 May 2014

On page 3, Article 1:

for:

‘Article 1

The persons and entities listed in the Annex to this Regulation shall be added to the list set out in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 269/2014.’

,

read:

‘Article 1

Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 is amended as follows:

| (a) | the heading “Persons” is inserted after the existing heading “List of natural and legal persons, entities and bodies referred to in Article 2”; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

the heading “Persons” is inserted after the existing heading “List of natural and legal persons, entities and bodies referred to in Article 2”;

| (b) | after the existing list of persons, the heading of a new section entitled “Entities” is inserted; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

after the existing list of persons, the heading of a new section entitled “Entities” is inserted;

| (c) | the persons and entities listed in the Annex to this Regulation shall be added to the relevant section of Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 269/2014.’ |
| --- | --- |

(c)

the persons and entities listed in the Annex to this Regulation shall be added to the relevant section of Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 269/2014.’

.

---
#### § 61.5 Provisions to govern.

The inspection, sampling, analyzing, and grading of cottonseed in the United States pursuant to the act shall be performed as prescribed in methods approved from time to time by the Director.
01490317.1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

HAROLD KELLY MURPHY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No.: 3:06-cv-618-MEF

)

SOUTHERN ENERGY HOMES, INC., et al., )

)

Defendants. )

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

COME NOW Lee E. Bains, Jr., Thomas W. Thagard III and Edward S. Sledge

IVof the law firm Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C., and hereby notify the Court of their

appearance as additional counsel of record on behalf of defendant Southern Energy

Homes, Inc.

_s/Thomas W. Thagard III ______________

Lee E. Bains, Jr. (BAI005)

Thomas W. Thagard, III (THA006)

Edward S. Sledge IV (SLE008)

Attorneys for Southern Energy Homes, Inc.

OF COUNSEL:

MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, P.C.

1901 Sixth Avenue North

2400 AmSouth/Harbert Plaza

Birmingham, AL 35203

(205) 254-1000 (Telephone)

(205) 254-1999 (Facsimile)

lbains@maynardcooper.com

tthagard@maynardcooper.com

sledge@maynardcooper.com

Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 35 Filed 05/11/2007 Page 1 of 2
01490317.1 2

W. Scott Simpson

RITCHEY & SIMPSON, PLLC

3288 Morgan Drive, Suite 100

Birmingham, Alabama 35216-3084

205.822.3422 (Telephone)

205.822.3618 (Facsimile)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on May 11, 2007 I electronically filed the foregoing with the

Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing

to the following:

Charles Lance Gould, Esq.

Carter Gibson Vance, Esq.

s/Thomas W. Thagard III

Of Counsel

Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 35 Filed 05/11/2007 Page 2 of 2
#### David M.A. Elias, Appellant, v Lord Nathaniel Charles Jacob Rothschild, Respondent.

[815 NYS2d 89]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered April 15, 2005, dismissing the complaint and bringing up for review an order of the same court and Justice, entered April 11, 2005, granting defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint as barred by the doctrine of res judicata, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from the April 11, 2005 order unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the ensuing judgment.

The transactions upon which this action is premised were the subject of prior claims brought by and concluded against plaintiff *(see Richbell Info. Servs. v Jupiter Partners,*309 AD2d 288 [2003]). Accordingly, the action is barred by the doctrine of res judicata *(O’Brien v City of Syracuse,*54 NY2d 353, 357 [1981]). We note in this connection that claims can arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions “even if there are variations in the facts alleged, or different relief is sought” *(Smith v Russell Sage Coll.,*54 NY2d 185, 192 [1981]) and even when “ ‘several legal theories depend on different shadings of the facts, or would emphasize different elements of the facts, or would call for different measures of liability or different kinds of relief ” *(id.,*quoting Restatement [Second] of Judgments [Tent Draft No. 5] § 61, Comment c).

Because the issues raised in this action were also actually and necessarily decided in the earlier case after plaintiff was af*449forded a full and fair opportunity for their litigation, dismissal was also warranted on the grounds of collateral estoppel *(see Kaufman v Eli Lilly & Co.,*65 NY2d 449, 455 [1985]). Concur— Friedman, J.P., Sullivan, Williams, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ.
February 13, 2013

Mr. James Sparks

Richardson Aviation

3800 Lincoln Avenue

Fort Worth, TX 76106

Dear Mr. Sparks:

This letter responds to your November 28, 2011, petition to the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) in which you request clarification of statements found in 

14 Code of Federal Regulations, part 43, appendix E and § 91.411(b)(3). Specifically, you 

provided a change that would replace parenthetical language “static system tests and 

inspections only” with “static pressure system and system integration tests”.

In general, we use the following criteria to determine which petitions for rulemaking are of 

sufficient priority to initiate a rulemaking action:

1) The immediacy of the safety concerns the petition raises;

2) The priority of other FAA rulemaking actions; and

3) The resources we have available to address these issues.

The issue you raise is not a safety concern. The FAA’s limited rulemaking resources

currently are being used to address numerous priority safety-related issues, including more

than 30 initiatives underway to address legislative mandates, most with critical deadlines. 

We also have underway a comprehensive overhaul of our Next Generation Air Transportation 

System (NEXTGEN) to make air travel more convenient, dependable, safe, and secure. Part of 

this initiative will require that we review and possibly amend many outdated regulations. The 

test requirements that you reference will be addressed in rulemakings related to implementation 

of NEXTGEN; we will not undertake separate action to address this petition. We will, 

however, ensure that your petition is taken into consideration as part of that effort.
2

In consideration of the foregoing and pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 

and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, your petition for rulemaking is hereby 

denied.

Sincerely,

/s/

John M. Allen

Director, Flight Standards Service
EXHIBIT 32.2
**Certification of Principal Financial Officer pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002**
I, Frederic T. Boyer, Chief Financial Officer of Qualstar Corporation (the “Company”), certify,pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:
(1)  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended December 31,2004 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(d)); and (2)  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
Dated: February 11, 2005     /s/ FREDERIC T. BOYER    **Frederic T. Boyer**
§ 58.134 Sediment content for milk in cans. ( a ) *Method of testing.* Methods for determining the sediment content of the milk of individual producers shall be those described in the latest edition of Standard Methods for the Examination of Dairy Products. Sediment content shall be based on comparison with applicable charts of the United States Sediment Standards for Milk and Milk Products, available from USDA, AMS, Dairy Programs, Dairy Standardization Branch.
( b ) *Sediment content classification.* Milk in cans shall be classified for sediment content, regardless of the results of the appearance and odor examination required in § 58.133(a), as follows: USDA SEDIMENT STANDARD No. 1 (acceptable)—not to exceed 0.50 mg. or equivalent. No. 2 (acceptable)—not to exceed 1.50 mg. or equivalent. No. 3 (probational, not over 10 days)—not to exceed 2.50 mg. or equivalent. No. 4 (reject)—over 2.50 mg. or equivalent.
( c ) *Frequency of tests.* At least once each month, at irregular intervals, one or more cans of milk selected at random from each producer shall be tested.
( d ) *Acceptance or rejection of milk.* If the sediment disc is classified as No. 1, No. 2, or No. 3, the producer's milk may be accepted. If the sediment disc is classified No. 4 the milk shall be rejected: *Provided that,* If the shipment of milk is commingled with other milk in a transport tank the next shipment shall not be accepted until its quality has been determined before being picked up; however, if the person making the test is unable to get to the farm before the next shipment it may be accepted but no further shipments shall be accepted unless the milk meets the requirements of No. 3 or better. In the case of milk classified as No. 3 or No. 4, all cans shall be tested. Producers of No. 3 or No. 4 milk shall be notified immediately and shall be furnished applicable sediment discs and the next shipment shall be tested.
( e ) *Retests.* On test of the next shipment all cans shall be tested. Milk classified as No. 1, No. 2, or No. 3 may be accepted, but No. 4 milk shall be rejected. The producers of No. 3 or No. 4 milk shall be notified immediately, furnished applicable sediment discs and the next shipment tested. This procedure of retesting successive shipments and accepting probational (No. 3) milk and rejecting No. 4 milk may be continued for not more than 10 calendar days. If at the end of this time all of the producer's milk does not meet the acceptable sediment content classification (No. 1 or No. 2), it shall be rejected.
This procedure of retesting successive shipments and accepting probational (No. 3) milk and rejecting No. 4 milk may be continued for not more than 10 calendar days. If at the end of this time all of the producer's milk does not meet the acceptable sediment content classification (No. 1 or No. 2), it shall be rejected.
[40 FR 47911, Oct. 10, 1975, Redesignated at 42 FR 32514, June 27, 1977, and further redesignated at 46 FR 63203, Dec. 31, 1981, as amended at 50 FR 34673, Aug. 27, 1985; 67 FR 48975, July 29, 2002; 77 FR 31720, May 30, 2012]
#### § 65.190 Lamb.

*Lamb* means meat produced from sheep.
Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 86 Filed 02/28/2007 Page 1 of 1
52.247-58 Loading, Blocking, and Bracing of

Freight Car Shipments.

As prescribed in 47.305-15(a)(2), insert the following clause in solicitations and contracts when

supplies may be shipped in carload lots by rail:

Loading, Blocking, and Bracing of Freight Car Shipments (Apr 1984)

(a) Upon receipt of shipping instructions, as provided in this contract, the supplies to be included in

any carload shipment by rail shall be loaded, blocked, and braced by the Contractor in accordance

with the standards published by the Association of American Railroads and effective at the time of

shipment.

(b) Shipments, for which the Association of American Railroads has published no such standards,

shall be loaded, blocked, and braced in accordance with standards established by the shipper as

evidenced by written acceptance of an authorized representative of the carrier.

(c) The Contractor shall be liable for payment of any damage to any supplies caused by the failure to

load, block, and brace in accordance with acceptable standards set forth herein.

(d) A copy of the appropriate pamphlet of the Association of American Railroads may be obtained

from that Association.

(End of clause)

Parent topic: 52.247 [Reserved]
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2836 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain other work footwear. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 18, 2006 

Mr. BROWNBACK introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain other work 

footwear. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN OTHER WORK FOOTWEAR. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.13.93 Other work footwear for 

women, with outer soles and 

uppers of rubber or plastics, 

other than house slippers 

and other than tennis shoes, 

basketball shoes, gym shoes, 

training shoes and the like 

(provided for in subheading 

6402.99.18) ......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•S 2836 IS 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002**

 

In connectionwith the Quarterly Report of Centenary International Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period endingJune 30, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,Carlos Fabian De Sousa, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

 

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

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

 

 

 

/s/ Carlos Fabian De Sousa 	         

Carlos Fabian De Sousa

Chief Executive Officer

August 20, 2012

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed formwithin the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. The foregoing certifications are accompanying theCompany's Form 10-Q solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and are not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO.: 5:95cr5030-SPM

LUIS GATO,

Defendant.

______________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR REDUCTION OF SENTENCE

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendant Luis Gato’s letter

dated August 10, 2011, requesting a sentence reduction under the Fair

Sentencing Act and 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Doc. 77. Defendant also filed a

memorandum (doc. 78) and the Government filed a response (doc. 80). 

Because Defendant was held accountable for 8.4 kilograms or more of

cocaine base1

, his guideline range does not change when the guideline

amendments are applied. Therefore, the Court is without jurisdiction to reduce

Defendant’s sentence. See United States v. Jones, 548 F.3d 1366, 1369 (11th

Cir. 2008) (district court lacks authority to educe a sentence based on a

1

 Defendant was held responsible for between 20 to 30 kilograms of

cocaine base, not powder cocaine as he states in his memorandum (doc. 78).
Page 2 of 2

retroactive guideline amendment when the amendment does not reduce the

defendant’s guideline range). Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: Defendant’s motion for reduction of

sentence (doc. 77) is denied.

DONE AND ORDERED this 4th day of January, 2012.

s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Senior United States District Judge

CASE NO.: 5:95cr5030-SPM
52.223-4 Recovered Material Certification.

As prescribed in 23.406(c), insert the following provision:

Recovered Material Certification (May 2008)

As required by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C.6962(c)(3)(A)(i)), the

offeror certifies, by signing this offer, that the percentage of recovered materials content for EPAdesignated items to be delivered or used in the performance of the contract will be at least the

amount required by the applicable contract specifications or other contractual requirements.

(End of provision)

Parent topic: 52.223 [Reserved]
(85 Misc. Rep. 654)

#### In re LEHMANN’S ESTATE.

(Surrogate’s Court, Bronx County.

May, 1914.)

Executobs and Administeatobs (§ 85*)— Peoceedings to Discoveb PbopEP.TY—J UBISDICTION.

Where, in a proceeding brought under Code Civ. Proe. § 2707, to discover a decedent’s property, it appears that questions of fact affecting the petitioner’s right to possession are involved, the surrogate cannot pass on the merits without consent of the parties.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Executors and Administrators, Cent. Dig. §§ 323, 339-358; Dec. Dig. § 85.*]

Proceedings under Code Civ. Proc. § 2707, to discover property of Karoline Lehmann, deceased.

Proceeding dismissed.

William H. Siebrecht, Jr., of Long Island City, for petitioner.

Milton A. Willment, of New York City, for respondent.

*

For other cases see same topic *&*§ number in Dec. *&*Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep'r Indexes

SCHULZ, S.

This proceeding was brought under section 2707 of the Code of Civil Procedure to discover property of the above-named decedent, alleged to be in the possession of the respondent. The respondent interposed an answer in which he denied that he had any property in his possession or under .his control belonging to the estate of the deceased, or which should be delivered to the petitioner. He admitted having in his possession a passbook and a certificate of ten shares of stock of the Business Men’s Building & Loan Association of Jersey City, N. J., but denied that they were the property of the decedent or of her estate, and alleged that he was the owner of the said book and certificate and entitled to the possession thereof. He also stated that he was “not willing "to consent to the determination of his rights if disputed in this court.” The surrogate, nevertheless, and by virtue of the power given him by section 2709 of the *1052Code of Civil Procedure,. directed the examination to proceed (Matter of Gick, 113 App. Div. 16, 98 N. Y. Supp. 961), and the same has been concluded.

The power of the surrogate to direct the delivery of property must be exercised with great care. He should not make an order adverse to a party cited, unless it conclusively appears as a matter of law; from the evidence produced, that his claim or title is not well founded. Matter of Gick, supra. From the examination had herein, it appears that there are questions of fact involved affecting the petitioner’s right to possession, which the surrogate cannot determine without the consent of the parties. Code Civ. Pro. § 2710; Matter of McGee, 63 Misc. Rep. 494, 118 N. Y. Supp. 423; Matter of Kellogg, 72 Misc. Rep. 303, 131 N. Y. Supp. 203. The respondent having refused to consent to the determination of this matter by the surrogate, it must, under the circumstances here present, end, and the petitioner must seek some other forum having jurisdiction to decide upon the merits, which, under the circumstances, I have no power to do. The proceeding is therefore dismissed, but not upon the merits, and without costs. Settle order accordingly on two days’ notice.

Decreed accordingly.
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 on Form 10-K of Heelys, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ending
December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, Michael W. Hessong, Interim Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Lisa K.
Peterson, Chief 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 our knowledge,
that:



Date:
March 31, 2009

|    |  |                                                                          |  | 
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | 
|By: |  | /s/MICHAEL W. HESSONG Michael W. Hessong Interim Chief Executive Officer |  | 
|By: |  | /s/LISA K. PETERSON Lisa K. Peterson Chief Financial Officer             |  | 

The
foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an Exhibit to the Report.

---



QuickLinks
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

BERNARD J. NUNNALLY,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 3:20-cv-6018-LC-MJF

MARK INCH,

Respondent.

/

ORDER

This cause comes on for consideration upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report 

and Recommendation dated June 24, 2021. (Doc. 10). The parties were furnished a 

copy of the Report and Recommendation and were afforded an opportunity to file 

objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made 

a de novo determination of those portions to which an objection was made.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation and all objections 

thereto, I conclude that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 10), is 

adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order.

2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 8) is GRANTED.

Case 3:20-cv-06018-LC-MJF Document 12 Filed 07/20/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1), challenging the 

judgment of conviction and sentence in State of Florida v. Bernard Jamill Nunnally, 

Okaloosa County Circuit Court Case Nos. 2015-CF-1608 and 2015-CF-1609, is 

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as time barred.

4. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

5. The clerk of court shall close this case file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 20th day of July, 2021.

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

s/L.A. Collier 

Case 3:20-cv-06018-LC-MJF Document 12 Filed 07/20/21 Page 2 of 2