alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVA NIA** 

IN RE: ORDER ADOPTING NEWRULES 626 and 627 , AMENDING RULES 631, 632, AND 647, APPROVING THE REVISION OF THE COMMENT TO RULE 646, AND RENUMBERING RULE 630 AS RULE 625 OF THE PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE : : : : : : : : : NO. 464

CRIMINAL PROCEDURAL RULES DOCKET

**ORDER PER CURIA** **M AN**  **D NOW** , this 7th day of Ju ly, 201 5 , upon the recommendation of the Criminal Procedural Rules Committee ; the proposal having been published before adoption at 42 Pa.B

. 380 (January 21 , 201 2 ) , and in the Atlantic Reporter (Third Series Advance Sheets, Vol. 34 ), and a Final Report to be published with this **ORDER :**  **IT IS**  **ORDERED** pursuant to Article V, Section 10 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania that new Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure 626 and 627 and the amendments to Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure 631, 632, and 647 are adopted , the revision to the Comment to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 646 is approved, and Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 630 is renumbered to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 625 in the attached form. This **ORDER** shall be processed in accordance with Pa.R.J.A. No. 103(b), and shall be effective October 1, 2015.

Additions to the rules are shown in bold and are underlined. Deletions from the rules are shown in bold and brackets.
# C_2014361EN.01001802.xml

| 13.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 361/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 361/18

---

Action brought on 11 August 2014 — Syriatel Mobile Telecom v Council

(Case T-596/14)

2014/C 361/26

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Syriatel Mobile Telecom (Joint Stock Company) (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat and C. Cornet d'Elzius, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;

| — | In consequence, annul Decision 2014/309/CFSP of 28 May 2014 and its subsequent implementing acts in so far as they concern the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

In consequence, annul Decision 2014/309/CFSP of 28 May 2014 and its subsequent implementing acts in so far as they concern the applicant;

| — | Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-592/14 Makhlouf v Council
   (1).

Makhlouf

Council

1

---

(1)  OJ C 290, p. 13.

1

---
EXHIBIT 32.1


CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SS 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Edd Helms Group,  Inc.
and Subsidiaries (the "Company") for the quarter ended August 31, 2006, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
we, W. Edd Helms,  Jr.,  President and Chief  Executive  Officer of the Company,
Dean A. Goodson,  Chief  Financial  Officer,  and L. Wade Helms,  Executive Vice
President  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  1350, as adopted pursuant to section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of 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.

Date: December 21, 2006     /s/  W. Edd Helms, Jr.
      ------------------    ----------------------
                            W. Edd Helms, Jr., President, Chief
                             Executive Officer

       December 21, 2006      /s/  Dean A. Goodson
      ------------------    --------------------
                            Dean A. Goodson, Chief Financial Officer

      December 21, 2006     /s/  L. Wade Helms
      ------------------    ------------------
                            L. Wade Helms, Executive Vice President
-----Forwarded by Jeb Stenhouse/DC/USEPA/US on 12/15/2011 09:04AM -----

To: Christine_J._Kymn@omb.eop.gov

From: Jeb Stenhouse/DC/USEPA/US

Date: 12/13/2011 08:55PM

Cc: Sam Napolitano/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject: Re: Final Transport Rule ozone supplemental rulemaking - final draft responding to interagency 

comments

(See attached file: EO 12866_SupplementalEO 12866 13563 Interagency Comments1 Supplemental 

Transport Final_EPA response to interagency comments 12-13-11_to OMB at 845pm_redline.docx)

(See attached file: SNPR final budget TSD_12-7-11 FINAl_to OMB_v2 to OMB 12-13-11.docx)

Hi Christine,

Here are updated drafts of the preamble and TSD that reflect the edits you requested regarding the final 

Transport Rule RIA.

Sincerely,

Jeb Stenhouse

Chief, Program Development Branch

Clean Air Markets Division

US Environmental Protection Agency

202-343-9781

stenhouse.jeb@epa.gov

-----Jeb Stenhouse/DC/USEPA/US wrote: -----

To: "Kymn, Christine J." <Christine_J._Kymn@omb.eop.gov>

From: Jeb Stenhouse/DC/USEPA/US

Date: 12/13/2011 03:56PM

Cc: Sam Napolitano/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject: Re: Final Transport Rule ozone supplemental rulemaking - final draft responding to interagency 

comments

Hi Christine - I neglected to attach a companion document showing you the budget comparisons that I 

understand you and Sam discussed earlier today. Here it is!

(See attached file: Ozone Season Budget Comparisons for OMB 12-13-11.docx)

Sincerely,

Jeb Stenhouse

Chief, Program Development Branch

Clean Air Markets Division

Environmental Protection Agency

202-343-9781

stenhouse.jeb@epa.gov

Jeb Stenhouse---12/13/2011 03:12:24 PM---Hi Christine, Sam asked me to send you a response draft 

that provides edits and explanations with re

From: Jeb Stenhouse/DC/USEPA/US

To: "Kymn, Christine J." <Christine_J._Kymn@omb.eop.gov>

Cc: Sam Napolitano/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 12/13/2011 03:12 PM
Subject: Final Transport Rule ozone supplemental rulemaking - final draft responding to interagency 

comments

Hi Christine,

Sam asked me to send you a response draft that provides edits and explanations with regards to all of 

the comments we received from interagency review. Please note that I marked our responses with 

"EPA RESPONSE" in the margin comments, and the attached version is fully updated and shows you 

redline of the changes we made in response to interagency comments. This is now the latest version of 

the ozone supplemental preamble and rule text.

(See attached file: EO 12866_SupplementalEO 12866 13563 Interagency Comments1 Supplemental 

Transport Final_EPA response to interagency comments 12-13-11_to OMB at 230pm_redline.docx)

Sincerely,

Jeb Stenhouse

Chief, Program Development Branch

Clean Air Markets Division

Environmental Protection Agency

202-343-9781

stenhouse.jeb@epa.gov

[attachment "EO 12866_SupplementalEO 12866 13563 Interagency Comments1 Supplemental Transport 

Final_EPA response to interagency comments 12-13-11_to OMB at 230pm_redline.docx" removed by 

Jeb Stenhouse/DC/USEPA/US]

[attachment "Ozone Season Budget Comparisons for OMB 12-13-11.docx" removed by Jeb 

Stenhouse/DC/USEPA/US]
*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.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 97-40862

Summary Calendar

JOHNNY LEE ELLIS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

J. E. MERIT CONSTRUCTORS INCORPORATED, a subsidiary

of Jacobs Engineering Group, Incorporated; ET AL,

Defendants,

J. E. MERIT CONSTRUCTORS INCORPORATED, a subsidiary

of Jacobs Engineering Group Incorporated,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Texas

(C-96-CV-669)

April 28, 1998

Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*
2

Johnny Lee Ellis ("Ellis"), a 55-year-old male of Native

American national origin, started working for J. E. Merit

Constructors Inc. ("Merit") as a pipe fitter in April 1993. On

September 30, 1993, Merit discharged Ellis for alleged misconduct

in violation of a company work rule after an incident in which

Ellis and another co-worker opened and removed tools from a toolbox

that belonged to another employee. Following his discharge, Ellis

filed an EEOC charge of discrimination on June 30, 1994, and then

on December 20, 1996 commenced suit in federal court asserting

claims against Merit for discriminatory termination and assignment

of employment duties on the basis on national origin and age in

violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.

§ 2000e et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act

(ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 621. On March 28, 1997 Merit moved for a

summary judgment on Ellis’ Title VII and ADEA claims and on May 21,

1997 the district court entered an Order granting Merit’s Motion

for Summary Judgment. Ellis now appeals.

We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the reply brief, the

corrected reply brief, the record excerpts and various portions of

the record itself. For the reasons stated by the district court in

its Order filed May 21, 1997, we are convinced that the Final

Judgment entered by the district court on May 21, 1997 should be,

and the same is hereby, AFFIRMED.
§ 1.61-14 Miscellaneous items of gross income. ( a ) *In general.* In addition to the items enumerated in section 61(a), there are many other kinds of gross income. For example, punitive damages such as treble damages under the antitrust laws and exemplary damages for fraud are gross income. Another person's payment of the taxpayer's income taxes constitutes gross income to the taxpayer unless excluded by law. Illegal gains constitute gross income. Treasure trove, to the extent of its value in United States currency, constitutes gross income for the taxable year in which it is reduced to undisputed possession.
( b ) *Cross references.* ( 1 ) Prizes and awards, see section 74 and regulations thereunder;
( 2 ) Damages for personal injury or sickness, see section 104 and the regulations thereunder;
( 3 ) Income taxes paid by lessee corporation, see section 110 and regulations thereunder;
( 4 ) Scholarships and fellowship grants, see section 117 and regulations thereunder;
( 5 ) Miscellaneous exemptions under other acts of Congress, see section 122;
( 6 ) Tax-free covenant bonds, see section 1451 and regulations thereunder.
( 7 ) Notional principal contracts, see § 1.446-3.
[T.D. 6500, 25 FR 11402, Nov. 26, 1960, as amended by T.D. 6856, 30 FR 13316, Oct. 20, 1965; T.D. 8491, 58 FR 53127, Oct. 14, 1993]
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION IX

Mr. Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer

California Air Resources Board

Post Office Box 2815

Sacramento, California 95812

Dear Mr. Corey:

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 941 05-3901

JUL 062016

On June 9, 2016, CARB submitted a revision to the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). We

have reviewed the materials submitted with the following document and found that they fulfill the

completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V.

In the coming months we will review the complete revision for action pursuant to Clean Air Act section

110(k). This addresses the only revision in this submittal, although CARB also submitted a related PM10

plan for the Owens Lake area under separate cover letter on the same day. We will address

completeness for this other submittal separately.

Questions regarding our completeness review should be directed to Arnold Lazarus at (415) 972-3024.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth J. Adams

Acting Director, Air Division

Mr. Phill Kiddoo

Air Pollution Control Officer

Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District

Ms. Karen Magliano, Chief

Air Quality Planning and Science Division

California Air Resources Board

.~D S% in’

~%L PRO~

Prinledo,, 10000 Postco,,su,,,er Recycled Pape,: Process chlorine Free.
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATIONS
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of ECO2 Plastics,
Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Report"), Rodney S. Rougelot, Chief Executive Officer and Interim Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to his
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 result of operations of the Company.







Rodney S. Rougelot


By:
Rodney S. Rougelot


Its:
Chief Executive Officer and Interim Chief Financial Officer





Date:
November 14, 2008





[A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
ECO2
Plastics, Inc. and will be retained by it and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

967 

TP 11-00463 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CENTRA, CARNI, GREEN, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF STEPHEN JONES, PETITIONER, 

V ORDER

BRIAN FISCHER, COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, RESPONDENT. 

 

WYOMING COUNTY-ATTICA LEGAL AID BUREAU, WARSAW (SUSAN K. JONES OF

COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER. 

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (PETER H. SCHIFF OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial

Department by order of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County [Mark H.

Dadd, A.J.], entered March 2, 2011) to review a determination of

respondent. The determination found after a Tier III hearing that

petitioner had violated various inmate rules. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously

confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed. 

Entered: September 30, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court
S. J. Res. 95

One Hundred Third Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-three

Joint Resolution

To designate October 1993 as ‘‘National Breast Cancer Awareness Month’’.

Whereas breast cancer will strike an estimated 182,000 women

and 1,000 men in the United States in 1993;

Whereas the risk of developing breast cancer increases as a woman

grows older;

Whereas breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death

in women, and will kill an estimated 46,000 women and 300

men in 1993;

Whereas the 5-year survival rate for localized breast cancer has

risen from 78 percent in the 1940’s to over 90 percent today;

Whereas most breast cancers are detected by the woman herself;

Whereas educating both the public and health care providers about

the importance of early detection will result in reducing breast

cancer mortality;

Whereas appropriate use of screening mammography, in conjunction

with clinical examination and breast self-examination, can result

in the detection of many breast cancers early in their development

and increase the survival rate to nearly 100 percent;

Whereas data from controlled trials clearly demonstrate that deaths

from breast cancer are significantly reduced in women who have

been screened by mammography;

Whereas many women are reluctant to have screening mammograms for a variety of reasons, such as the cost of testing, lack

of information, or fear;

Whereas access to screening mammography is directly related to

socioeconomic status;

Whereas increased awareness about the importance of screening

mammography will result in the procedure being regularly

requested by the patient and recommended by the health care

provider; and

Whereas it is projected that more women will use this lifesaving

test as it becomes increasingly available and affordable: Now,

therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, That October
S. J. Res. 95—2

1993 is designated as ‘‘National Breast Cancer Awareness Month’’

and the President is authorized and requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe the

month with appropriate programs and activities.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Swift Energy
Managed Pension Assets Partnership 1989-1, Ltd.'s balance sheet and statement of
operations  contained in its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended  September 30, 1998
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         1,615
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  64,881
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               66,496
<PP&E>                                         3,215,999
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,306,119)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 976,376
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          81,820
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     894,556
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   976,376
<SALES>                                        165,659
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               166,410
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  298,435<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (171,627)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (171,627)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (171,627)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>Includes  lease  operating  expenses,  production  taxes  and  depreciation,
depletion and  amortization  expense.  Excludes general and  administrative  and
interest expense.
</FN>

        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 144 (Wednesday, July 29, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 37734]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-18060]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-71,466]


Borg Warner Diversified Transmission Products, Inc., Muncie, IN; 
Notice of Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on June 30, 2009 in response to a company 
official petition filed on behalf of workers of Borg Warner Diversified 
Transmission Products, Inc., Muncie, Indiana.
    The group of workers employed by the subject firm is covered by an 
earlier petition (TA-W-71,378) filed on June 22, 2009 that is the 
subject of an ongoing investigation for which a determination has not 
yet been issued. Consequently, further investigation in this case would 
serve no purpose, and the investigation under this petition has been 
terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 7th day of July 2009.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-18060 Filed 7-28-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
# C_2016016EN.01003701.xml

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2015 — Soprema v OHIM — Sopro Bauchemie (SOPRAPUR)

(Case T-763/14) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Community - Word mark SOPRAPUR - Prior Community word mark Sopro - Relative ground for refusal - Similarity of the goods and the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 016/45)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Holding Soprema (Strasbourg, France) (represented by: M.-R. Hirsch, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: E. Scheffer and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Sopro Bauchemie GmbH (Wiesbaden, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 August 2014 (Case R 1370/2013-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Sopro Bauchemie GmbH and Holding Soprema.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Holding Sopremo to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Holding Sopremo to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 73, 2.3.2015.

1

---
#### § 1.167(i)-1 Depreciation of improvements in the case of mines, etc.

Property used in the trade or business or held for the production of income which is subject to the allowance for depreciation provided in section 611 shall be treated for all purposes of the Code as if it were property subject to the allowance for depreciation under section 167. The preceding sentence shall not limit the allowance for depreciation otherwise allowable under section 611.

[T.D. 6500, 25 FR 11402, Nov. 26, 1960. Redesignated, T.D. 6712, 29 FR 3653, Mar. 24, 1964]