alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2015245EN.01004601.xml

| 27.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 245/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 245/46

---

Action brought on 1 June 2015 — Abdulkarim v Council

(Case T-304/15)

(2015/C 245/56)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Mouhamad Wael Abdulkarim (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: J.-P. Buyle and L. Cloquet, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2015/375 of 6 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2015/375 of 6 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

| — | annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/383 of 6 March 2015 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/383 of 6 March 2015 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

| — | order the Council to pay all the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay all the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those invoked in the context of Case T-303/15 Barqawi v Council.

Barqawi

Council

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MARA FLAMM : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

:

SARNER & ASSOCIATES, P.C.; JOSHUA SARNER; : NO. 02-4302

LEONARD SARNER, ESQUIRE; :

JODI H. BROWN, M.D.; JOHN MATUSAVAGE; :

JOHN DOE PROCESS SERVER, INDIVIDUALLY AND :

AS AGENT FOR SARNER 7 ASSOCIATES, P.C.; :

JOSHUA SARNER, ESQUIRE; LEONARD SARNER, :

ESQUIRE; AND JODI H. BROWN, M.D. :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 11th day of August, 2004, upon consideration of correspondence to the

Court from counsel for Plaintiff and counsel for the Sarner Defendants dated August 9, 2004, and

August 10, 2004, respectively, it is hereby ORDERED that a Discovery Hearing shall take place

on August 16, 2004, at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 3H, United States Courthouse, 601 Market Street,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106 to discuss Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents.

BY THE COURT:

 

M. FAITH ANGELL

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:02-cv-04302-MFA Document 56 Filed 08/13/2004 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 31.2
CERTIFICATION

I, Parrish B. Ketchmark, certify that:

         1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of EnerTeck
Corporation;

         2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statements 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 registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

         4. The small business issuer's other certifying officers 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; and

                  (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 fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonable likely to materially affect, the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

         5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I 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 functions):

                  (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; and

                  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting.


Dated: June 6, 2005              By:/s/Parrish B. Ketchmark
                                    Parrish B. Ketchmark,
                                    Principal Financial Officer
Page 1 of 2

Conference Call

Date: Friday, February 26, 2016

Call Time: 2:00 – 3:00 PM

Participants:

EPA Region 3: Todd Ellsworth, Jessica Fry and Tim Leon Guerrero

Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE): Tad Aburn, Duane King, Jeetendra 

Upadhyay, Michael Woodman, Roger Thunell, Molla Saros, and John Artes (via phone)

Raven Power: Tom Weissinger (via phone) 

Talen Energy: Megan Toomey (via phone)

AECOM: Bob Paine and Mary Kaplan (via phone)

Call Summary:

The purpose of this call was to discuss EPA’s development of comments to MDE/AECOM’s 

modeling protocol for the Wagner Generating Station that was sent by Mike Woodman (MDE)

via email to EPA Region 3 on the morning of February 25, 2016. EPA Region 3 acknowledged 

the receipt of the modeling protocol and that they would attempt to send protocol comments to 

MDE as soon as possible. A brief discussion of several items in the protocol including 

background concentrations and the use of non-default beta options within AERMOD (version 

15181) occurred. There was a longer discussion regarding the emission rate for Wagner Unit 2. 

MDE wanted to apply its MATS control on this unit retroactively to the unit’s actual emissions 

in the modeling analysis. A switch to lower sulfur coal used in this unit occurred in 2015. EPA 

Region 3’s position is that either actual emissions over the last three (3) years or allowable 

emission rates for all modeled units should be used in accordance with EPA’s Modeling 

Technical Assistance Document (TAD). This discussion point was not resolved on the call.

Two other items were brought up at the end of the call. Tim Leon Guerrero (EPA Region 3) 

suggested that a plant-wide emission rate that would show compliance with the standard should 

be considered. Bob Paine (AECOM) asked if there would be some way that the facility could 

periodically model its current emissions, show compliance (into the future) and possibly get an 

unclassifiable designation for the Wagner Area.
Page 2 of 2

Tad Aburn requested that additional calls be made to EPA’s OAQPS division to settle some of 

the outstanding modeling issues. He also requested that additional calls between MDE’s 

Secretary and EPA Region 3’s Regional Administrator be facilitated. EPA Region 3 

acknowledged this request and said that it would notify their management.
,mE /&ma- GEnaEagAG’ OF ?lrExAs Aus- 11.

.J3sxAs **.JOIXN BEN**  **sEEPPEKD**

**--=--m. “**  **~~: Trimbie**  opinionHO. o-4817 First Assistant State Re: Whether school districtmay compel S erintendentof "g bondholders to consent to refunaPu lit Instruction ing program. Austin, Texas
Dear sirs

we have receivedyour letter of recent date in which you enclosea letter from Hr. Dana Williams Superintendent of the Tenaha Public Schools, to Dr. L. A. Woo&, State Superintendent. We quote the following from hr. WilU.am*sletter:

"1. Where a school districthas several separate bond issues and wishes to refund all of the bonds in one of those issues, and said school,d?strict obtains the consentof a majority of the bond ownersto such a refunding program, can such a school di@rict force the remaining'bondholdexs by way of manaansls to consent to such a refun*: - i program? !F&e%amplet Our schooldistricthas five .~ distinct;

and separatebona issues. We are attempting 

### to~refund

one ,of these issnes-such issueAbeforce the'ownersof the remaining$7,9OO.OC

### worth of these bonds to consent to this plan? These bonds have no option date for purchase..
We~are ,Informed

that the StateBoard of Education owns for the benefit of the PermanentSchool Fiand more than one-third of all the outstar&Lngbonds of,theTenaha'Independent School Msp trict. It is, .thus ,apparent that resort to-the Federal ~Rankruptcy Act may not be ha&for a plan of composltion,t3br the reason that the requirementof consent of 66-2/3# of the creditorswould be lacking. We, therefore, confineou#discusslon to the question whether under theilaws of Texas a school district may by legal process compel the holders of Its outstanding bonds to consent to a refundingprogram.

Article 2789, Vernon'sAnnotatedCivil Statutes, reads, ln part, as folltvwst

"Where bonds have beenlegally issued, or may be hereafter issued, by any town or village incorporated for free schoolpurposesonly or any common school district, indep~endent school district, con-
|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 Annual Report of Westsphere Asset Corporation, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Douglas MacDonald, Chief Executive Officer, certify, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|



| | 
| | 

|Date: April 16, 2007 |  | By: |  | /s/ Douglas Mac Donald                               
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------
|                     |  |     |  | Name: Douglas MacDonaldTitle: Chief Executive Officer
|                     |  |    
|                     |  |    

---
No. 50892.

#### Protests 108415-K, etc., of Shalom & Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests. .
EXHIBIT 32.2

                             CERTIFICATE 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 Quarterly Report of Integrated Healthcare Holdings,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2004, as
filed  with  the  Securities  and  Exchange   Commission  (the  "Report"),   the
undersigned,  in the capacity and on the dates indicated below, 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), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the period indicated.

      This  Certificate has not been, and shall not be deemed,  "filed" with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.


      Dated: November 15, 2004                 By:  /s/ James Ligon
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                    James Ligon
                                                    Chief Financial Officer
Appendix F 

Model Performance Evaluation 

 
Appendix F.1 

MM5 2002 Modeling in Support of VISTAS 
Appendix F.2 

Air Quality Model Performance Evaluation 

for the Great Smokys
Case No. 14,988.

#### UNITED STATES v. DOUGLASS.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 94.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Dec. Term, 1813.

Witness—Freeborn Mulatto.

A freeborn mulatto is a competent witness against a white person.

1

 [Reported by Hon. William Cranch, Chief Judge.]

Indictment for larceny. The defendant [Rufh Douglass] was a white woman. Nancy Butler, a freeborn mulatto, was permitted to testify for the United States, upon the authority of U. S. y. Mullany, at December term, 1808 [Case No. 15,832].

THRUSTON, Circuit Judge, absent.
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1216 

To clarify that an authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, 

or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention without charge 

or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 24, 2017 

Mr. LEE (for himself, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. CRUZ, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Ms. 

COLLINS, and Mr. COONS) introduced the following bill; which was read 

twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To clarify that an authorization to use military force, a 

declaration of war, or any similar authority shall not 

authorize the detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States, 

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, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Due Process Guar5 antee Act’’. 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1216 IS

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON THE INDEFINITE DETENTION OF 

2 CITIZENS AND LAWFUL PERMANENT RESI3 DENTS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 4001 of title 18, United 

5 States Code, is amended by striking subsection (a) and 

6 inserting the following: 

7 ‘‘(a) No citizen or lawful permanent resident of the 

8 United States shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained 

9 by the United States except consistent with the Constitu10 tion and pursuant to an Act of Congress that expressly 

11 authorizes such imprisonment or detention.’’. 

12 (b) RELATIONSHIP TO AN AUTHORIZATION TO USE

13 MILITARY FORCE, DECLARATION OF WAR, OR SIMILAR

14 AUTHORITY.—Section 4001 of title 18, United States 

15 Code, as amended by subsection (a) is further amended— 

16 (1) by redesignating subsection (b) as sub17 section (c); and 

18 (2) by inserting after subsection (a) the fol19 lowing: 

20 ‘‘(b)(1) A general authorization to use military force, 

21 a declaration of war, or any similar authority, on its own, 

22 shall not be construed to authorize the imprisonment or 

23 detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful per24 manent resident of the United States apprehended in the 

25 United States. 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1216 IS

1 ‘‘(2) Paragraph (1) applies to an authorization to use 

2 military force, a declaration of war, or any similar author3 ity enacted before, on, or after the date of the enactment 

4 of the Due Process Guarantee Act. 

5 ‘‘(3) This section shall not be construed to authorize 

6 the imprisonment or detention of a citizen of the United 

7 States, a lawful permanent resident of the United States, 

8 or any other person who is apprehended in the United 

9 States.’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
Before the Third Division,

August 20, 1948

No. 52510.

protest 64033-K (New York).

#### V. S. Andrew *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoice should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on entry 812303. The protest was sustained to this extent.
BF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0602

IN THE MATTER OF:

B.B.,

Respondent & Appellant.

GRANT OF EXTENSION

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30-day extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is granted an extension of time to 

and including February 26, 2022, within which to prepare, serve, and file its 

response brief.

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

January 26 2022

01/26/2022

Case Number: DA 20-0602
# C_2017078EN.01003201.xml

| 13.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/32

---

Order of the General Court of 25 January 2017 — Internacional de Productos Metálicos v Commission

(Case T-217/16) (1)

1

((Action for annulment - Dumping - Imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China or consigned from Malaysia - Regulation repealing definitive anti-dumping duties - Act not of individual concern - Regulatory act entailing implementing measures - Manifest inadmissibility))

(2017/C 078/44)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Internacional de Productos Metálicos, SA (Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain) (represented by: C. Cañizares Pacheco, E. Tejedor de la Fuente and A. Monreal Lasheras, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland, M. França and G. Luengo, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Article 2 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/278 of 26 February 2016 repealing the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China, as extended to imports of certain iron or steel fasteners consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not (OJ 2016, L 52, p. 24).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | Internacional de Productos Metálicos, SA is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Internacional de Productos Metálicos, SA is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 251, 11.7.2016.

1

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CHESTER COUNTY HOSPITAL, : NO. 2:02-cv-02746-JRP

Plaintiff :

:

VS. :

:

INDEPENDENCE BLUE CROSS, et al.,:

Defendants :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this day of June , 2003, upo n

consideration of the Motion of Plaintiff The Chester County

Hospital for Leave to File its Motion to Compel Production of

Documents by Defendant Independence Blue Cross Under Seal (Doc. No.

63), it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED.

It is so ORDERED.

BY THE COURT:

_________________________________

 CHARLES B. SMITH

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 78 Filed 06/26/2003 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 35.4



---

EXHIBIT 35.4

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

Banc of America Card Servicing Corporation

BA Credit Card Trust

The undersigned,
a duly authorized officer of Banc of America Card Servicing Corporation (BACSC), as Subservicer (the Subservicer) pursuant to the Delegation of Servicing Agreement dated as of May 22, 2006 (as amended from time to time,
the Agreement) by and between Bank of America, National Association (USA) and BACSC, does hereby certify that:



|1. | BACSC is Subservicer under the Agreement.
|-- | -----------------------------------------



|2. | A review of the Subservicers activities during the period from and including May 10, 2006 through and including June 30, 2006 and of its performance under the
Agreement has been made under my supervision.
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|3. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, BACSC has fulfilled all of its obligations in all material respects under the Agreement throughout such period.
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 25th day of September 2006.



|       |  |                      
|------ |  | ---------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ Greg W. Hobby    
|Name:  |  | Greg Hobby           
|Title: |  | Senior Vice President
No. 66257.

#### The A. W. Fenton Co., Inc *v.*United States,

protests 59/34516, 59/34517, and 59/34518 (Cleveland).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of prepared or preserved pork similar in all material respects to that the subject of *C. J. Tower & Sons*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 36, C.D. 2100), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.