alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 1, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00092

- CR

Michael Lewis ARCE

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 17

- 2118

- CR

- C Honorable William Old, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Court reporter Patricia Wagner has filed a notification of late reporter’s record, requesting an extension to August 29, 2018. Her request is GRANTED. We ORDER Patricia Wagner to file the reporter’s record on or before August 29, 2018. NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS WILL BE GRANTED. If Patricia Wagner does not file the reporter’s record by that date, an order may be issued directing her to show cause why she should not be held in
contempt.

_________________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 1st day of August, 2018

.

___________________________________ K eith E. H ottle

Clerk of Court
§ 573.840 Polysorbate 60. The food additive polysorbate 60 (polyoxyethylene (20) sorbitan monostearate) may be safely used in animal feeds in accordance with the following prescribed conditions: ( a ) It is used alone or in combination with sorbitan monostearate as an emulsifier in mineral premixes and dietary supplements for animal feeds.
( b ) It is used as an emulsifier in milk-replacer formulations for calves.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                            1,071
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    35,576
<ALLOWANCES>                                      2,264
<INVENTORY>                                      24,012
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 61,197
<PP&E>                                            4,908
<DEPRECIATION>                                    2,018
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   75,392
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            51,366
<BONDS>                                           5,020
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               331
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                              0
<OTHER-SE>                                       18,675
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     75,392
<SALES>                                         218,176
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                218,176
<CGS>                                           154,367
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 49,571
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                2,313
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  11,925
<INCOME-TAX>                                      4,770
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               7,155
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                      7,155
<EPS-BASIC>                                        2.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      2.12


</TABLE>
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

TJ FISHER,

Appellant,

v.

PALM BEACH FLORIDA HOTEL AND OFFICE BUILDING LIMITED 

PARTNERSHIP and NANTUCKET ENTERPRISES, INC.,

Appellees.

No. 4D21-1017

[February 17, 2022]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Joseph George Marx, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

502008CA039646.

TJ Fisher, West Palm Beach, pro se.

Timothy W. Schulz of Timothy W. Schulz, P.A., West Palm Beach, for 

appellee Palm Beach Florida Hotel and Office Building Limited 

Partnership. 

Alan B Rose and Gregory S. Weiss of Mrachek, Fitzgerald et al, West 

Palm Beach, for appellee Nantucket Enterprises.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

KLINGENSMITH, KUNTZ, and ARTAU, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
EXHIBIT 32


 Certification pursuant to 18. U.S.C Section 1350 pursuant to Section 906 of the
                   Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002; filed herewith

August 13, 2004


Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549


Re:  Certification Required Under Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003

In connection with the accompanying report on Form 10-Q for the period
ended June 30, 2004, and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), We, John E. Loehr, Chief Executive Officer of
GulfWest Energy Inc. (the "Company"), and Richard L. Creel, Vice President of
Finance of the Company hereby certify 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.


GulfWest Energy Inc.


/s/ John E. Loehr
-----------------
By: John E. Loehr
Chief Executive Officer

/s/ Richard L. Creel
--------------------
By: Richard L. Creel
Vice President of Finance
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 25, 2017

s0717 

# Order

Clerk July 25, 2017

154323

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 154323

COA: 326709

St Clair CC: 14

- 001044

- FH;

14

- 001047

- FH

DONALD RAY FERGUSON,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 19, 2016

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DE NIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

W ILDER

, J. , did not participate because he was on the Court of Appeals panel.
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________ 

Case No. 5D23-0589 

LT Case No. 2021-CF-000477

_____________________________ 

AMANDA LEANN MOTT, 

Appellant, 

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee. 

_____________________________ 

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Nassau County. 

Jenny Higginbotham Barrett, Judge. 

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Jane Almy, Assistant 

Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Anne C. Conley, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee. 

October 3, 2023 

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. 

EDWARDS, C.J., BOATWRIGHT, and KILBANE, JJ., concur. 
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
§ 582.1516 Monopotassium glutamate. ( a ) *Product.* Monopotassium glutamate.
( b ) *Conditions of use.* This substance is generally recognized as safe when used in accordance with good manufacturing or feeding practice.
# C_2014292EN.01001801.xml

| 1.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 292/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Firenze (Italy) lodged on 12 June 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Skerdjan Celaj

(Case C-290/14)

2014/C 292/22

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale di Firenze

Party to the main proceedings

Party to the main proceedings

Skerdjan Celaj

Question referred

Question referred

Do the provisions of Directive 2008/115 (1) preclude a Member State’s legislation which provides for the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment of up to four years on an illegally staying third-country national [Or.10] who, having been returned to his country of origin neither as a criminal law sanction nor as a consequence of a criminal law sanction, has re-entered the territory of the State in breach of a lawful re-entry ban but has not been the subject of the coercive measures provided for by Article 8 of Directive 2008/115 with a view to his swift and effective removal?

1

[Or.10]

neither as a criminal law sanction nor as a consequence of a criminal law sanction

but has not been the subject of the coercive measures provided for by Article 8 of Directive 2008/115 with a view to his swift and effective removal

---

(1)  Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98).

1

---
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7404 

AN ACT 

To require annual reports on counter illicit cross-border 

tunnel operations, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 7404 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Subterranean Border 

3 Defense Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. ANNUAL REPORTS ON COUNTER ILLICIT CROSS5 BORDER TUNNEL OPERATIONS. 

6 Paragraph (2) of section 7134(a) of the James M. 

7 Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

8 2023 (Public Law 117–263; 6 U.S.C. 257 note) is amend9 ed by inserting ‘‘and annually thereafter’’ after ‘‘develop10 ment of the strategic plan’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 9, 

2024. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7404 

AN ACT 

border tunnel operations, and for other purposes. 

To require annual reports on counter illicit cross-
# C_2014194EN.01001202.xml

| 24.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 194/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 194/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 28 March 2014 — Loutfi Management Propriété Intellectuelle SARL v AMJ Meatproducts NV, Halalsupply NV

(Case C-147/14)

2014/C 194/15

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Loutfi Management Propriété Intellectuelle SARL

Appellant:

Respondents: AMJ Meatproducts NV, Halalsupply NV

Respondents:

Question referred

Question referred

In view of, inter alia, Articles 21 and 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, (1) must Article 9(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (2) of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark be interpreted as meaning that, in the assessment of the likelihood of confusion between a Community trade mark in which an Arabic word is dominant and a sign in which a different, but visually similar, Arabic word is dominant, the difference in pronunciation and meaning between those words may, or even must, be examined and taken into account by the competent courts of the Member States, even though Arabic is not an official language of the European Union or of the Member States?

1

2

---

(1)  OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.

2

---
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER





Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)
and


Rule
13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934




I, Keith
A. Meister, Principal Executive Officer of Icahn Enterprises G.P. Inc., the
general partner of Icahn Enterprises L.P. (the “Registrant”), certify that, to
the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the Icahn Enterprises L.P.,
quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended March 31, 2009 of the
Registrant (the “Report”):




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




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




/s/
      Keith A. MeisterKeith
      A. MeisterPrincipal
      Executive Officer and Vice Chairman of the
              Board
      of Icahn Enterprises G.P. Inc., the general
              partner
      of Icahn Enterprises L.P.


Date:
August 4, 2009
§ 520.1430 Mibolerone. ( a ) *Specifications.* Each milliliter contains 100 micrograms of mibolerone.
( b ) *Sponsor.* See No. 054771 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
( c ) *Conditions of use in dogs* — ( 1 ) *Amount.* 30 micrograms for animals weighing 1 to 25 pounds; 60 micrograms for animals weighing 26 to 50 pounds; 120 micrograms for animals weighing 51 to 100 pounds; 180 micrograms for animals weighing over 100 pounds, German Shepherds, or German Shepherd mix. Administer daily, orally or in a small amount of food, at least 30 days before expected initiation of heat, and continue daily as long as desired, but not for more than 24 months.
( 2 ) *Indications for use.* For the prevention of estrus (heat) in adult female dogs not intended primarily for breeding purposes.
( 3 ) *Limitations.* Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
[43 FR 15625, Apr. 14, 1978, as amended at 78 FR 28824, May 20, 2014]
§ 522.772 Doramectin and levamisole. ( a ) *Specifications.* Each milliliter of solution contains 5 milligrams (mg) of doramectin and 150 mg levamisole hydrochloride.
( b ) *Sponsor.* See No. 054771 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
( c ) *Related tolerances.* See §§ 556.222 and 556.350 of this chapter.
( d ) *Conditions of use* — ( 1 ) *Cattle* — ( i ) *Amount.* Inject subcutaneously in the neck as a single dose at a dosage of 0.2 mg doramectin (0.91 mg/lb) and 6 mg of levamisole hydrochloride per kg (2.72 mg/lb) of body weight.
( ii ) *Indications for use.* For treatment and control of gastrointestinal roundworms (adults and fourth stage larvae): *Ostertagia ostertagi* (including inhibited larvae), *O. lyrata, Haemonchus placei, Trichostrongylus axei, T. colubriformis, T. longispicularis, Cooperia oncophora, C. pectinata, C. punctata, C. surnabada, Bunostomum phlebotomum* (adults only), *Strongyloides papillosus* (adults only), *Oesophagostomum radiatum, Trichuris spp.* (adults only) and *Nematodirus helvetianus* (adults only); lungworms (adults and fourth stage larvae): *Dictyocaulus viviparus;* eyeworms (adults): *Thelazia* spp.; grubs (parasitic stages): *Hypoderma bovis* and *H. lineatum;* sucking lice: *Haematopinus eurysternus, Linognathus vituli,* and *Solenopotes capillatus;* mange mites: *Psoroptes bovis* and *Sarcoptes scabiei* in beef cattle 2 months of age and older and replacement dairy heifers less than 20 months of age. Not for use in beef bulls intended for breeding over 1 year of age, dairy calves, and veal calves.
( iii ) *Limitations.* Cattle must not be slaughtered for human consumption within 15 days following last treatment with this drug product. Not for use in female dairy cattle 20 months of age or older, including dry dairy cows; use in these cattle may cause drug residues in milk and/or in calves born to these cows or heifers. Not for use in beef calves less than 2 months of age, dairy calves, and veal calves. A withdrawal period has not been established for this product in pre-ruminating calves.
( 2 ) [Reserved]
[88 FR 14898, Mar. 10, 2023]
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Federal Maritime Commission
 The Commission has established the following allotment of time and order of presentation for the hearing concerning the Commission's Passenger Vessel Financial Responsibility Program. The hearing will convene at 10 a.m., March 3, 2010, in the Commission's Main Hearing Room, Room 100, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Washington, DC 20573. In the event that additional time is needed to hear all participants and allow presenters to field questions from the Commission, an afternoon session will be convened. The due date for submitting the original and 15 copies of participant's prepared hearing statement is Friday, February 26, 2010. All written submissions, except for confidential business information, will be available for public inspection. Company
Participant(s)
Time allotment 
                             (in minutes)American Cruise Lines Inc.
Charles A. Robertson, Chairman & Chief Executive Officer
15Carnival Corporation & PLC
David Bernstein, Senior Vice President & Chief Financial Officer
15Crystal Cruises, Inc.
Ann G. Miller, Law Offices of Ann G. Miller
15Cruise Lines International Association
Terry L. Dale, President and CEO, J. Michael Cavanaugh, Holland & Knight LLP
15Passenger Vessel Association
Ed Welch, Legislative Director
15
 Karen V. Gregory, Secretary.


[FR Doc. 2010-4202 Filed 3-1-10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
#### § 5.1105 Chief Counsel, Food and Drug Administration.

The Office of the Chief Counsel's mailing address is White Oak Bldg. 1, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993.[1]

[85 FR 72906, Nov. 16, 2020]

###### Footnotes -
  5.1105

[1] The Office of the Chief Counsel (also known as the Food and Drug Division, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Health and Human Services), while administratively within the Office of the Commissioner, is part of the Office of the General Counsel of the Department of Health and Human Services.
# 7IR n F 1 / 4 ,1 ‘ 7 1:1 1. "C IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 21-0056
JOHN RICHARDS,LINDA MILLER and LARRY RICHARDS,

Petitioners and Appellants. 

# FILE APR 06 2021

Bowen Gret-.:nyvo0O Clerk of Supreme Court State of Montana v. ORDER MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION,

Respondent and Appellee. Representing himself,Appellant John Richards moves for a stay pending his appeal ofthe District Court's order dismissing his petition forjudicial review ofthe final order by the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) cancelling a lease. Appellee DNRC has not filed a response. Richards also seeks an extension oftime within which to file his opening brief. Richards appeals a January 5, 2021 Order of the Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, dismissing his petition for judicial review, without prejudice, because Richards did not include the grounds for relieffrom the Final Agency Order,as required by § 2-4-702(2)(a)(i)-(iv),and (b),MCA.' On February 23,2021,the District Courtdenied Richards's Motion for Stay ofExecution Pending Appeal. Under the Montana Rules ofAppellate Procedure,a person first must seek a stay in District Court. M.R. App. P. 22(1)(a)(i). Richards sought a stay in the District Court, which denied his request. When reviewing a district court's denial ofa motion for stay, this Court is guided by Rule 22(2)(a), which requires that a party seeking relieffrom the order file a motion within 11 days ofthe order and demonstrate good cause for the relief

I The District Court noted that only Petitioner Larry Richards had signed the Petition and that Larry Richards therefore was the only Petitioner properly before the court. All three Petitioners signed and filed notices ofappeal,but John Richards alone filed the instant Motion to Stay. 04/06/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0056requested. Richards's motion,dated March 8—the date due for filing—was not filed until

March 10, 2021, and is therefore untimely. We conclude further that Richards has not demonstrated good cause for a stay. He states his desire for the lease to be transferred to an acceptable purchaser so that his lease improvements are not forfeited, but he does not explain why immediate reliefis needed from the DistrictCourt's direction thathe refile the petition forjudicial review in compliance with requirementsofthe Montana Administrative Procedure Act. Although Richards requests mediation, the Rules governing appellate mediation do not apply to this appeal because it concerns judicial review. M.R.App.P. 7(2). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Richards's Motion for Stay is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Richards's Motion for Extension of Time is GRANTED. The opening briefshall be filed on or before May 14,2021. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy ofthis Order to counsel ofrecord and to John Richards along with a copy ofthis Court's Civil Appellate Handbook. DATED this 4. day ofApril, 2021. 

# -0-01,

, ,(L)fr ChiefJustice

Justices 2
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ISAURO FRANCISCO RAMIREZBRAVO,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-70092

Agency No. A070-677-376

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 29, 2010** 

Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

Isauro Francisco Ramirez-Bravo, a native and citizen of Guatemala,

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his

appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for

cancellation of removal, asylum and withholding of removal, as well as denying

FILED

JUL 09 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-70092

his request for a continuance. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We

review for abuse of discretion the denial of a request for a continuance, Nakamoto

v. Ashcroft, 363 F.3d 874, 883 n.6 (9th Cir. 2004), and we review for substantial

evidence the agency’s factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-

85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Ramirez-Bravo

failed to demonstrate eligibility for asylum, where he testified to suffering no harm

in the past and he admitted to having no fear of returning to Guatemala. See

Ratnam v. INS, 154 F.3d 990, 994 (9th Cir. 1998) (“Either past persecution or a

well-founded fear of future persecution provides eligibility for a discretionary

grant of asylum.”). Because Ramirez-Bravo failed to satisfy the lower standard of

proof for asylum, he necessarily failed to demonstrate eligibility for withholding of

removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

The agency did not abuse its discretion by denying Ramirez-Bravo’s request

for a continuance, where the need for a continuance was based largely on his own

unreasonable conduct. See Baires v. INS, 856 F.2d 89, 92-93 (9th Cir. 1988).
3 08-70092

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of cancellation of removal

on hardship grounds. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.

2005). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Joseph Inzitari

*George A. Baden*and *Sturges N. Laros,*in support of the petition.

Submitted September 15

decided November 6, 1969

The petition by the defendant for certification for appeal from the Appellate Division of the Circuit Court is denied.