alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022489EN.01006301.xml

| 22.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 489/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 489/63

---

Corrigendum to Statement of revenue and expenditure of the European Environment Agency for the financial year 2022

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 141 of 29 March 2022
  )

(2022/C 489/12)

On page 13, Revenue, Chapter 2.2

for:

| Title
  Chapter | Heading | Financial year 2022 | Financial year 2021 | Financial year 2020 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| ‘2 | MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE | | | |
| ... | | | | |
| 2 2 | CONTRIBUTIONS UNDER SPECIFIC AGREEMENTS – ASSIGNED REVENUE (1) | 29 459 000 | 13 449 000 | 15 618 000 ,— |
| ... | | | | |
| | Title 2 – Total | 29 459 000 | 13 449 000 | 15 618 000 ,— |
| | GRAND TOTAL | 85 296 021 | 64 867 177 | 63 229 067 ,—’ |

Title

Chapter

Heading

Financial year 2022

Financial year 2021

Financial year 2020

‘2

MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE

...

2 2

CONTRIBUTIONS UNDER SPECIFIC AGREEMENTS – ASSIGNED REVENUE (1)

29 459 000

13 449 000

15 618 000 ,—

...

Title 2 – Total

29 459 000

13 449 000

15 618 000 ,—

GRAND TOTAL

85 296 021

64 867 177

63 229 067 ,—’

read:

| Title
  Chapter | Heading | Financial year 2022 | Financial year 2021 | Financial year 2020 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| ‘2 | MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE | | | |
| ... | | | | |
| 2 2 | CONTRIBUTIONS UNDER SPECIFIC AGREEMENTS – ASSIGNED REVENUE (1) | 30 036 000 | 13 449 000 | 15 618 000 ,— |
| ... | | | | |
| | Title 2 – Total | 30 036 000 | 13 449 000 | 15 618 000 ,— |
| | GRAND TOTAL | 85 873 021 | 64 867 177 | 63 229 067 ,—’ |

Title

Chapter

Heading

Financial year 2022

Financial year 2021

Financial year 2020

‘2

MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE

...

2 2

CONTRIBUTIONS UNDER SPECIFIC AGREEMENTS – ASSIGNED REVENUE (1)

30 036 000

13 449 000

15 618 000 ,—

...

Title 2 – Total

30 036 000

13 449 000

15 618 000 ,—

GRAND TOTAL

85 873 021

64 867 177

63 229 067 ,—’

---
#### Rick PARKER, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Patricia STANSBERRY, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 05-6383.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 18, 2005.

Decided Aug. 24, 2005.

Rick Parker, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Rick Parker, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Parker’s motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Parker v. Stansberry,*No. CA-04-910-5-FL (E.D.N.C. Feb. 16, 2005). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
Case No. 14,903.

#### UNITED STATES v. CUNNINGHAM.

[Cited in Barnes v. Billington. Case No. 1.015. Nowhere reported; opinion not now accessible.]
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 Chelsea Therapeutics International, Ltd. (the Company) for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on or about the date hereof (the Report), I, Simon Pedder, President and Chief Executive Officer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,
to my knowledge:

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

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



/S/    SIMON
PEDDERSimon PedderPresident and Chief Executive Officer


March 3, 2009
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  Exhibit 10.37

[LOGO] CEMA 2500 Wilson Boulevard Arlington, VA 22201-3834 USA Tel 703 907 7600
Fax 703 907 7601 www.CEMAcity.com Consumer Electronics Manufacturers Association






                                  CONSENT FORM


         The Consumer Electronics Manufacturers' Association (CEMA) authorizes
the use of its name in association with the data as shown in Rockford
Corporation's S-1 document filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC).


Consumer Electronics Manufacturers Association





By /s/ Timothy J. Herbert                           Date 7-20-99


Title Senior Research Analyst
<PAGE>   1
                                                               STREICH
                                                                 LANG

           Phoenix Office                             a Professional Association
           Renaissance One                                     Attorneys
          Two North Central
     Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2391
            602 229-5200
          Fax: 602 229-5690

July 18, 1997                                             Writer's Direct Line:
                                                             (602) 229-5509

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

     RE: Zila, Inc.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

     This firm is counsel for Zila, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
"Company"). As such, we are familiar with the Certificate of Incorporation and
Bylaws of the Company. We have also acted as counsel for the Company with
respect to certain matters in connection with the preparation of a Registration
Statement on Form S-3 registering 4,484,398 shares of Common Stock, $.001 par
value (the "Shares") under the Securities Act of 1933. In addition, we have
examined such documents and undertaken such further inquiry as we consider
necessary for rendering the opinion hereinafter set forth below.

     Based upon the foregoing, it is our opinion that:

     1. The Company is a corporation duly organized and validly existing under
        the laws of the State of Delaware.

     2. The Shares, when issued, will be duly and validly issued, fully-paid and
        nonassessable.

     We acknowledge that we are referred to under the heading "Legal Matters" of
the Prospectus which is part of the Registration Statement, and we hereby
consent to the use of our name in such Registration Statement. We further
consent to the filing of this opinion as Exhibit 5-A to the Registration
Statement and with the state regulatory agencies in such states as may require
such filing in connection with the registration of the Shares for offer and sale
in such states.

                                                     Very truly yours,

                                                     /s/  Kevin J. Tourek

                                                     Kevin J. Tourek
                                                     FOR THE FIRM


                                   EXHIBIT 5-A
Before the Third Division,

March 8, 1960

No. 63929.

protest 58/18828 (New York).

#### Dreyfus Ashby & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that the facts and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C.C.P.A. 112, C.A.D. 351) and that the one carton of liquor reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, was not in fact received by the importer. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited, it was held that duty and internal revenue tax are not assessable upon the one carton of liquor, which was reported by the inspector as manifested, not found. The protest was sustained to this extent.
Comment Info: ================= General Comment:Petition for exemption/rulemaking.
No. 52790.

#### Bohemian Dist. Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 896873-G, etc. (Los Angeles, etc.).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION REQUIRED BY RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b) AND

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



I, Monty Moore, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Nevada Star Resource Corp. certify that:



1.

This quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Nevada Star Resource Corp. 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 this quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Nevada Star Resource Corp.



Date:  April 15, 2005

/s/ Monty Moore





Monty Moore, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
* 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

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 21, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-41140

Conference Calendar

JOHN C. SPURLOCK,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JANIE COCKRELL; AMADO IGLESIAS; BRENDA CHANEY;

CRYSTAL IRVIN; UNKNOWN PICKET OFFICER,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:02-CV-61

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

Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

John C. Spurlock, Texas prisoner # 741571, appeals the

district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint and

moves this court for appointment of counsel. The district court

determined that Spurlock’s claims against several of the

defendants were duplicative of claims that had been raised in a

prior § 1983 complaint that was dismissed as frivolous. Spurlock

v. Scott, No. V-00-0067 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 27, 2002). The district
No. 04-41140

-2-

court granted the remaining defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

We conclude that Spurlock’s claims against all of the

defendants are duplicative of his claims in the earlier lawsuit

that was dismissed by the district court as frivolous. As his

instant claims are duplicative, the district court properly

dismissed them as malicious pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). See Pittman v. Moore, 980 F.2d 994, 994-95

(5th Cir. 1993); Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir.

1988); see also Sojourner T v. Edwards, 974 F.2d 27, 30 (5th Cir.

1992) (court may affirm on any grounds supported by the record).

As Spurlock’s appeal is without arguable merit, it is

dismissed as frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20

(5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. His motion for appointment of

counsel on appeal is denied. 

The dismissal of the instant appeal as frivolous counts as a

strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103

F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Spurlock previously received

two strikes when his prior § 1983 complaint was dismissed as

frivolous in Spurlock v. Scott, No. V-00-0067 (S.D. Tex. Sept.

27, 2002), and this court dismissed his appeal as frivolous in

Spurlock v. Scott, 90 F. App’x 743, 744 (5th Cir. 2004). Because

Spurlock now has accumulated at least three strikes under 

§ 1915(g), he is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis in any

civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained
No. 04-41140

-3-

in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious

physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL DENIED; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) BAR IMPOSED.
Before the Third Division,

July 28, 1952

No. 56825.

#### Fondeville & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 141822-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Eicwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of china figures similar in all material respects to the figures passed upon in *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.*v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 15, C. A. D. 458), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6478

JUAN ERNESTO MARCIAS-GARCIA,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GEORGE SNYDER, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief

District Judge. (5:05-hc-00308-FL)

Submitted: November 15, 2006 Decided: November 20, 2006

Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Juan Ernesto Marcias-Garcia, Appellant Pro Se. Steve R. Matheny,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Juan Ernesto Marcias-Garcia, a federal prisoner, appeals

the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241

(2000) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by

the district court. Marcias-Garcia v. Snyder, No. 5:05-hc-00308-FL

(E.D.N.C. Feb. 21, 2006). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Force Minerals Corporation, (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ending November 30, 2014, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Tim DeHerrera, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:



(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.







/s/Tim DeHerrera

By: Tim DeHerrera

Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer

Dated: March 2, 2015



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
---

Exhibit 99.10


CONSENT OF TERENCE HODSON Reference is made to the technical report entitled Technical Report Updatedated March 2, 2010, which the undersigned has prepared for Baja Mining Corp. (the Technical Report). I hereby consent to the inclusion of references to my name and references to, and information derived from, the Technical Report, in this Annual Report on Form 40-F of Baja Mining Corp., and the documents incorporated therein by reference, which is being filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, and in the Registration Statement on Form F-10 (333-165352) of Baja Mining Corp. Dated this 30th day of March, 2012. /s/Terence HodsonName: Terence Hodson


---
----

Action brought on 31 January 2005 by Coats Holdings Limited and J & P Coats Limited against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-36/05)

(2005/C 93/62)

Language of the case: English

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 31 January 2005 by Coats Holdings Limited, established in Uxbridge (United Kingdom) and J & P Coats Limited established in Uxbridge (United Kingdom), represented by W. Sibree and C. Jeffs, Solicitors.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the contested decision the Commission found that during the period extending from 10 September 1994 to 31 December 1999, the applicants, among other undertakings, had infringed Article 81(1) EC by engaging in concerted practices and entering into a series of agreements which amounted to a tripartite agreement having the effect and object of (i) sharing the European hard haberdashery market, a fact which amounts to product market sharing between the hand sewing and special needles market with the wider markets for needles and with other hard haberdashery markets, and (ii) partitioning the European market for needles, a fact which amounts to geographic market sharing in the needles market.

In support of their application the applicants invoke first of all a series of manifest errors of assessment on the part of the Commission. The applicants do not contest the Commission's findings in relation to the existence of a cartel between the other undertakings mentioned in the contested decision. However, the applicants claim that the Commission's finding that the applicants had also participated in the same cartel is based on speculation, unjustified inference, a large number of simple factual errors and a series of strained interpretations of events. The applicants consider that the Commission's errors are inevitable since it conducted a defective investigation during which it failed to address any pertinent questions to the applicants about the meetings and agreements in question and has failed to appreciate the commercial context in which the applicants operated and which led them to enter into entirely legitimate agreements for the sale of a business and the subsequent supply of needles.

The applicants further claim that even if the Court were to uphold all or part of the alleged infringement the fine should be reduced substantially. According to the applicants the Commission imposed the same fine on the Applicants as that imposed on another participant, despite the fact that even in the Commission' s version of events the applicants played only a minor role compared to the other undertakings. The applicants also considers that the fine is grossly disproportionate to their turnover in the needles market, the only market where their participation could have had any impact, and in this sense grossly disproportionate to any potential economic benefit to themselves or harm to consumers.

----
Before the Second Division,

October 16,1961

No. 66146.

#### Kaiser Reismann Corp. *v.*United States,

protests 59/758 and 59/4740 (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of synthetic filaments similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Empire Brushes, Inc.,*and *Wood Niebuhr & Co.*v. *United States*(42 Cust. Ct. 145, C.D. 2078), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<PAGE>   1
                        AMERICA WEST HOLDINGS CORPORATION
                   COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE
                        (IN THOUSANDS EXCEPT SHARE DATA)
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                     THREE MONTHS ENDED                      SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                                           JUNE 30,                              JUNE 30,
                                                   1998                1997              1998               1997
                                                   ----                ----              ----               ----
<S>                                             <C>                <C>                <C>                <C>
Basic Earnings Per Share:

   Net income applicable to common stock        $    41,417        $    23,008        $    66,555        $    36,962
                                                ===========        ===========        ===========        ===========

   Weighted average number of common
       shares outstanding ..............         43,616,703         44,519,010         43,808,055         44,479,616
                                                ===========        ===========        ===========        ===========

   Basic earnings per share ............        $      0.95        $      0.52        $      1.52        $      0.83
                                                ===========        ===========        ===========        ===========

   Diluted Earnings Per Share:

   Net income applicable to common stock        $    41,417        $    23,008        $    66,555        $    36,962
                                                ===========        ===========        ===========        ===========

Share Computation:
   Weighted average number of common
       shares outstanding ..............         43,616,703         44,519,010         43,808,055         44,479,616
   Assumed exercise of stock options
       and warrants (a) ................          4,792,985          1,585,330          4,323,876          1,735,943
                                                -----------        -----------        -----------        -----------
   Weighted average number of common
       shares outstanding as adjusted ..         48,409,688         46,104,340         48,131,931         46,215,559
                                                ===========        ===========        ===========        ===========

   Diluted earnings per share ..........        $      0.86        $      0.50        $      1.38        $      0.80
                                                ===========        ===========        ===========        ===========
</TABLE>

(a)      The stock options and warrants are included only in the periods in
         which they are dilutive.

                                       21
**Exhibit 32.1****Residential Capital Corporation****Certification of Principal Executive Officer and PrincipalFinancial Officer****Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**In connection with the Annual Report of Residential CapitalCorporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year endedDecember 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of theundersigned officers of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:1)     The Report fully complies with the requirements of    section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of    1934; and 2)     The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all    material respects, the financial condition and results of    operations of the Company./s/ Bruce J. Paradis Bruce J. ParadisChief Executive OfficerMarch 28, 2006/s/ Davee L. Olson Davee L. OlsonChief Financial OfficerMarch 28, 2006
United States Steel Corporation

– Minntac

Response to U. S. EPA Section 114 Request April 2 4, 2012 **Item 9** The BART report discusses the technical feasibl y of overfire air and induced flue gas technology . Provide all documentation, including reports and studies, to determine the technical feasibility

of overfire air and induced flue gas technology at the facility's indurating furnaces. **Person(s): that provided information used or considered in responding to the question or were consulted in the preparation of the response:**  Chrissy Bartovich, Stephani Campbell, Teresa Simetkosky **Answer:** Based on a revi ew of files and available information, no reports or studies other than the BART report were found which discuss technical feasibility of overfire air or induced flue gas technology . However, Lines 4
- 7 at Minntac have heat recoup ducts installed whic h recirculate hot process gases from the cooler into the DD2 section of the grate to accomplish drying of the pellets without adding additional energy
.