alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Before the Third Division,

August 30, 1951

No. 55841.

protests 167471-K, etc. (Philadelphia).

#### Keer, Maurer Company, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the appraisements of the merchandise and the liquidations of the entries were made in the same manner, under facts and circumstances the same in all material respects, as the appraisement and liquidation in *The Gruen Watch Company*v. *United States*(24 Cust. Ct. 101, C. D. 1216). In accordance with stipulation and following the cited authority the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained. It was further held that legal liquidations should be had which would form the basis for protests in which, should they so desire, the importers may litigate any questions presented by such action under section 514, Tariff Act of 1930.
**Related Conference Materials**  List of Publications Related to this Consensus Conference

**Limb-sparing                           Treatment of Adult Soft-tissue Sarcomas                           and Osteosarcomas**December 3-5, 1984                           Vol. 5, No. 6

**PLEASE                           NOTE: This statement is outdated and                           is no longer viewed by NIH as guidance for                           medical practice.**
Read                           full NIH Consensus Statement

**NOTE:**

**Go to:**

--Choose one--                     NEWS AND UPCOMING ACTIVITIES                     ..News Releases                     CONSENSUS STATEMENTS                     ..by Date                     ..by Subject                     TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT STATEMENTS                     CONTINUING MEDICAL EDUCATION                     ABOUT THE PROGRAM                     ..Frequently Asked Questions                     ..OMAR Staff Directory                     SEARCH                  
NIH         Home Page         | Consensus         Page |         NLM         HSTAT Home Page
# C_2016211EN.01002701.xml

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/27

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 7 March 2016 — Georgsmarienhütte GmbH and Others v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-135/16)

(2016/C 211/34)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Georgsmarienhütte GmbH, Stahlwerk Bous GmbH, Schmiedag GmbH, Harz Guss Zorge GmbH

Defendants: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Question referred

Does the European Commission Decision of 25 November 2014 (Commission Decision of 25.11.2014 on the aid scheme SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) implemented by Germany for the support of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users, C(2014)8786 final) (1) breach the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in so far as the Commission qualifies the limitation of the EEG-surcharge as aid within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU?

---

(1)  OJ 2015 L 250, p. 122.

---
1 

Filed 3/20/14 P. v. Finley CA3 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED 

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT 

(Butte) 

---- 

THE PEOPLE, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

 v. 

MATHEW ROYCE FINLEY, 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

C074226 

(Super. Ct. No. CM037377) 

 On September 20, 2012, at about 10:23 p.m., deputies conducted a traffic stop on a 

Chevrolet truck driven by defendant Mathew Royce Finley. The truck was searched and 

a deputy found a handgun, a black metal ammunition can with three boxes of rifle 

ammunition, a small amount of marijuana, a butterfly knife, and three T-shirts with the 

Vagos Motorcycle Club insignia on them. Defendant was on parole at the time. 

 Defendant pleaded no contest to possession of ammunition by a felon (Pen. Code, 

§ 30305, subd. (a)(1)) and admitted a strike and a prior prison term (Pen. Code, 

§§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court denied defendant’s motion to 
2 

dismiss the strike and sentenced him to seven years in state prison, imposed various fines 

and fees, and awarded 560 days of presentence credits (280 actual and 280 conduct). 

 Defendant appeals. He did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. 

 We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening 

brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and 

determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 

25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental 

brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, 

and we received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination 

of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more 

favorable to defendant. 

DISPOSITION 

 The judgment is affirmed. 

 RAYE , P. J. 

We concur: 

 HULL , J. 

 MAURO , J.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary  information  extracted from the Balance Sheet at
March 31, 2000 and Statement of Operations  for the three months ended March 31,
2000,  and  is  qualified  in  its  entirety  by  reference  to  such  financial
statements.

</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                           1000

<S>                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                          3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                   DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                      JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                        MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                                        1,995
<SECURITIES>                                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                     0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                  0
<PP&E>                                                      238,830
<DEPRECIATION>                                              (33,506)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                              210,463
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                             0
<BONDS>                                                     142,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                             0
<PREFERRED>                                                       0
<COMMON>                                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                                   63,752
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                210,463
<SALES>                                                      10,013
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                             10,136
<CGS>                                                         3,553
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                 3,553
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                              3,014
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                            2,268
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                               1,301
<INCOME-TAX>                                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                           1,301
<DISCONTINUED>                                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                   0
<CHANGES>                                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                                  1,301
<EPS-BASIC>                                                     0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                     0



</TABLE>
UNITED STATES NAVY-MARINE CORPS 

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Before

D.C. KING, A.Y. MARKS, P.D. LOCHNER

Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

DEQUAN R. WALKER

AVIATION ORDNANCEMAN AIRMAN APPRENTICE (E-2), U.S. NAVY

NMCCA 201600055

GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL

Sentence Adjudged: 26 October 2015.

Military Judge: CAPT Charles Purnell, JAGC, USN.

Convening Authority: Commander, Navy Region Mid-Atlantic, 

Norfolk, VA.

Staff Judge Advocate's Recommendation: CDR A.R. House, JAGC, 

USN.

For Appellant: CAPT Bree A. Ermentrout, JAGC, USN.

For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

21 April 2016

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

OPINION OF THE COURT 

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

 

 After careful consideration of the record, submitted without 

assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved 

by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military 

Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

 

 For the Court 

 R.H. TROIDL 

 Clerk of Court
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

THE DAUPHIN COUNTY INDUSTRIAL 

DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 

 v. 

PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY 

COMMISSION 

 Intervenor 

FIRST ENERGY SOLUTIONS, 

 Intervenor 

PETITION OF: PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC 

UTILITY COMMISSION 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 904 MAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court 

 

THE DAUPHIN COUNTY INDUSTRIAL 

DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 

 v. 

PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY 

COMMISSION 

 Intervenor 

FIRST ENERGY SOLUTIONS, 

 Intervenor 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 905 MAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court 

PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES, INC. PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES, INC.
[904 MAL 2015 and 905 MAL 2015] - 2 

PETITION OF: PPL ELECTRIC 

UTILITIES, INC., 

 

:

:

:

:

:

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 1st day of June, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED. 

Intervenor
EXHIBIT 32

             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 amended annual report of Alnilam Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended September 30, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned principal executive officer and principal
financial officer of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-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.

Date:  January 12, 2004

/s/ Jason Daggett
Jason Daggett, President and Treasurer
(Principal executive officer
and principal financial officer)
2008 VOC & NOx Target Levels

(Remainder on separate CD)

VOC Target Level for 2008 Milestone

Baltimore Nonattainment Area

Emissions in Tons per Day

Formula

A 2002 Base Year Inventory 494.68

B Biogenic Emissions 223.20

C 2002 Rate-of Progress Base Year Inventory A - B 271.48

D FMVCP/RVP Reductions Between 2002 and 2008 9.10

E 2002 Adjusted Base Year Inventory Calculated Relative to 2008 C - D 262.38

F Ratio 0.0800

GEmissions Reductions Required Between 2002 and 2008 E * F 20.99

H Target Level for 2008 [TL(2008)] C - D - G 241.39

I Contingency Requirements 3% 7.87

J Target Level for 2008 [TL(2008)] + Contingency I - J 233.52

Emission Level Obtained 219.25

NOx Target Level for 2008 Milestone

Baltimore Nonattainment Area

Emissions in Tons per Day

Formula

A 2002 Base Year Inventory 338.08

B Biogenic Emissions 0.00

C 2002 Rate-of Progress Base Year Inventory A - B 338.08

D FMVCP/RVP Reductions Between 2002 and 2008 22.60

E 2002 Adjusted Base Year Inventory Calculated Relative to 2008 C - D 315.47

F Ratio 0.0700

GEmissions Reductions Required Between 2002 and 2008 E * F 22.08

H Target Level for 2008 [TL(2008)] C - D - G 293.39

I Contingency Requirements 0% 0.00

J Target Level for 2008 [TL(2008)] + Contingency I - J 293.39

Emission Level Obtained 277.50
# C_2017202EN.01001304.xml

| 26.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/13

---

Order of the President of the Court of 16 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover — Germany) — Peter Roßnagel, Alexandre Schröter v TUIfly GmbH

(Case C-562/16) (1)

1

(2017/C 202/23)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 46, 13.2.2017.

1

---
EXHIBIT 31.1
 SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 I, Robert D Burr, CERTIFY THAT:
 1.
    
    I have reviewed this 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 of Bayou
City Exploration, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to
the period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows
of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in
this report;4.
    
    The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))
for the small business issuer and have:
 a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or
caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be
designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the small business
issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is
being prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business
issuers disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and
procedures, as of the end of the period covered by
this report based on such evaluation;c)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the small
business issuers internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the small business
issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small
business issuers fourth quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the small
business issuers internal control over financial
reporting; and
 5.
    
    The small business issuers certifying officer(s) have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit
committee of the small business issuers board of directors (or
persons performing the equivalent function):
 a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses
in the design or operation of internal control over
financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the small business issuers ability
to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant
role in the small business issuers internal controls
over financial reporting.
  /s/ Robert D. BurrRobert D. BurrChief Executive Officer and President
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-40195 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MARTIN BAEZA-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-98-CR-517-1

-------------------- August 27, 1999 Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender (“FPD”), on behalf of Martin Baeza-Martinez (“Baeza”), challenges Baeza’s guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry of a deported alien, 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The FPD contends that the district court erred by failing to comply with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1) during rearraignment and that the failure requires that his conviction be reversed.No. 99-40195 -2- The Government responds that the FPD has waived the argument by failing to raise it before the district court or in any similar case. As the Government concedes, however, claims of Rule 11 violations may raised for the first time on appeal. See United States v. Suarez , 155 F.3d 521, 524 (5th Cir. 1998)(Rule 11 challenge may be raised for the first time on appeal and is reviewed for harmless error); United States v. Reyna , 130 F.3d 104, 107 & n.2 (5th Cir. 1997)(although the defendant did not present his claim of noncompliance with Rule 11 in the district court, it is not waived), cert. denied , 118 S. Ct. 1328 (1998). Nevertheless, this appeal is frivolous. In reviewing whether the district court complied with the dictates of Rule 11, this court “conduct[s] a straightforward, two-question `harmless error’ analysis: (1) Did the sentencing court in fact vary from the procedures required by Rule 11, and (2) if so, did such variance affect substantial rights of the defendant?” United States v. Johnson , 1 F.3d 296, 298 (5th Cir. 1993) (en banc).Although he acknowledges his argument is subject to harmlesserror review, counsel makes no argument that Baeza’s substantial rights were affected; accordingly, there is no reversible error. See id. The appeal is without arguable merit and is therefore frivolous. Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Accordingly, it is DISMISSED. The Government’s motion to consolidate is DENIED. APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION DENIED.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 6808** 

FREDDIE RICHARD JONES , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. DENNIS BUSH, Warden Lee Correctional Institution , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Rock Hill

. Terry L. Wooten , Chief District Judge. ( 0:14

- cv - 01760

- TLW )

Submitted : October 26, 2015 Decided: November 23, 2015

Before MOTZ and FLOYD , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Freddie Richard Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Melody Jane Brown, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Caroli na, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Freddie Richard Jones seeks to appeal the district court ’ s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as un timely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012) . The magistrate judge recommended th at the petition be dismissed as untimely and
advised Jones that failure to file timely ob jections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge ’ s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review
of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v.
Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845

- 46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also
Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Jones has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately prese nted in the materials before
this court and ar gument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
**Exhibit 32.2**

**Certification of Nevada Classic Thoroughbreds, Inc.  pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  regarding Annual Report on Form 10-KSB  for the year ended June 30, 2009**

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), the undersigned officer of Nevada Classic  Thoroughbreds, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), doeshereby certify that, based upon her knowledge:

1. The Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended    June 30, 2009 (the "Form 10-KSB") fully complies with the    requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. Information contained in the Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of  the Company.

> 
 

| Dated: October 12, 2009 | By: /s/ Brad Brimhall                                   |
|-------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------|
|                    |                                                         |
|                    | Brad Brimhall                                           |
|                    | Chief Accounting Officer/Acting Chief Financial Officer |

>