alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
ACCOMPANYING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           5,389
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,749
<ALLOWANCES>                                       237
<INVENTORY>                                      2,762
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                23,830
<PP&E>                                          14,992
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,345
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  45,090
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,435
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                      37,645
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    45,090
<SALES>                                         12,229
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,229
<CGS>                                            5,249
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,249
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,485
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    46
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,508)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (928)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,580)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,580)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.15)


</TABLE>
# C_2017086EN.01001501.xml

| 20.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 27 December 2016 — CORPORATE COMPANIES s.r.o. v Ministerstvo financí ČR

(Case C-676/16)

(2017/C 086/18)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: CORPORATE COMPANIES s.r.o.

Applicant:

Defendant: Ministerstvo financí ČR

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Do persons who, by way of their business activity, sell companies already entered in the Register of Companies and formed for the purposes of sale (‘ready-made companies’), whose sale is realised by the transfer of a holding in the subsidiary company which they are selling, fall within the scope of Article 2(1), point 3(c) of Directive 2005/60/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing in conjunction with Article 3(7)(a) thereof?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2005 L 309, p. 15.

1

---
You are here: EPA Home ECOTOX

Welcome to ECOTOX Release 4.0. The ECOTOX (ECOTOXicology) database provides single chemical toxicity information for aquatic and terrestrial life.

For information on the latest data releases please see the Recent Additions

.

View the Quick User Guide (PDF, 2 p. 244 KB) to help get you started.

You will need to turn off pop-up blockers for this site.

You should consult the original scientific paper to ensure an understanding of the context of the data retrieved from the ECOTOX database. NHEERL / Mid-Continent Ecology Division

Other Tools & Databases

ASTER BSAF data set Eco-SSL documents Fathead Minnow data set PCB Residue Effects data set T oxicit y/ Residue 

## ECOTOX Database htt p : // cf p ub.e p a. g ov / ecotox / ecotox

_ home.cfm
Last u p dated on Monda y, Ma y 24

, 2010 

### Page 1 of 1 ECOTOX | MED | US EPA

5/24/2010 htt p ://cf p ub.e p a. g ov/ecotox/ecotox

_ home.cfm
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 Amended Annual Report of Ardent Mines Limited(the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the year ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Christopher Wilson, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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.



Dated this 14th day of October, 2008.



| | CHRISTOPHER WILSON                                 
| | ---------------------------------------------------
| | Christopher Wilson,                                
| | Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer













---
Before the Second Division,

October 15, 1957

No. 61271.

protests 292724-K, etc. (New York).

#### Lucas Electrical Service, Inc., and Frank J. Eberle Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items marked *“A”*consist of ammeters similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Lucas Electrical Services, Inc.,*and *Frank J. Eberle Co.*v. *United States*(36 Cust. Ct. 209, C. D. 1776), the claim at 12)4 percent under the provision in paragraph 369 (c), as modified, *supra,*for parts of automobiles was sustained. The items marked “B,” stipulated to consist of ammeters the same as those involved in C. D. 1776, except that the ammeters in the cited case were parts of automobiles whereas those in question are parts of motorcycles, were held dutiable at 15 percent under the provision in paragraph 369 (c), as modified, *supra,*for parts of motorcycles, as claimed.
SCAD-11-0000303

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner,

vs.

CHERYL PARKINSON MARTINSEN, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

(ODC 10-008-8842)

ORDER OF DISBARMENT

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, Duffy and McKenna, JJ.)

Upon consideration of the Office of Disciplinary

Counsel’s petition for issuance of a reciprocal discipline notice

to Respondent Cheryl Parkinson Martinsen, the memorandum,

affidavit, and exhibits appended thereto, and the record, it

appears the Supreme Court of California disbarred Respondent

Martinsen from the practice of law in that state on November 10,

2010; this court, on April 7, 2011, issued a notice and order

requiring Respondent Martinsen, in accordance with Rule 2.15(c)

of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai#i (RSCH),

to show cause as to why the same or substantially equivalent

discipline should not be imposed in the State of Hawai#i; service

of this court’s notice and order is deemed effective April 18,

2011; and Respondent Martinsen has not appeared or shown cause as

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCAD-11-0000303

10-AUG-2011

12:38 PM
to why such discipline should not be imposed. It further appears

that Respondent Martinsen cannot be located within the State of

Hawai#i and that making this disbarment order effective 30 days

after its entry as provided by RSCH Rule 2.1(c) would serve no

purpose. Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to RSCH Rule 2.15(c), 

that Respondent Martinsen is disbarred from the practice of law

in the State of Hawai#i, effective, notwithstanding RSCH Rule

2.16(c), immediately upon entry of this order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in addition to any other

requirements for reinstatement imposed by the Rules of the

Supreme Court of the State of Hawai#i, Respondent Martinsen shall

pay all costs of these proceedings as approved upon timely

submission of a bill of costs and an opportunity to respond

thereto, as prescribed by RSCH Rule 2.3(c).

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, August 10, 2011.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.

/s/ James E. Duffy, Jr.

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-7423

ELAN BELL-VENEY,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

SHELBY SEARLS, Superintendent, Huttonsville Correctional Center,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at 

Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:22-cv-00232-JPB-JPM)

Submitted: October 4, 2023 Decided: October 10, 2023

Before THACKER and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sherman Luis Lambert, Sr., Shepherdstown, West Virginia, for Appellant. Lindsay Sara 

See, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7423 Doc: 10 Filed: 10/10/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Elan Bell-Veney seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 

U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability 

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 

100, 115-17 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that 

the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. 

Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bell-Veney has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions 

are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7423 Doc: 10 Filed: 10/10/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           5,813,000
<SECURITIES>                                       900,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,057,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                       (57,000)
<INVENTORY>                                        197,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,768,000
<PP&E>                                           1,410,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                    (466,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  22,725,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,851,000
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            10,000
<OTHER-SE>                                      18,782,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    22,725,000
<SALES>                                          1,825,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,825,000
<CGS>                                              734,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      734,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,816,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          0
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1,725,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     132,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,593,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          (0.46)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.46)



</TABLE>
No. 52525.

protests 127386-K and 127387-K (Seattle).

#### Geo. S. Bush & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of platinum fox fur skins, undressed, similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. O. *Brager-Larsen*(36 C. C. P. A. 1, C. A. D. 388). The claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was therefore sustained.
# C_2017202EN.01002801.xml

| 26.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/28

---

Order of the General Court of 2 March 2017 — Oberösterreichische Landesbank v CRU

(Case T-376/16) (1)

1

(2017/C 202/44)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 343, 19.9.2016.

1

---
# C_2018005EN.01000701.xml

| 8.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 5/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 5/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 9 November 2017 — SolarWorld AG v Brandoni solare SpA, Solaria Energia y Medio Ambiente, SA, Council of the European Union, European Commission, China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products (CCCME)

(Case C-204/16 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Dumping - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013 - Article 3 - Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from China - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Exemption of imports covered by an accepted undertaking - Severability))

(2018/C 005/08)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: SolarWorld AG (represented by: L. Ruessmann, avocat, J. Beck, Solicitor)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Brandoni solare SpA, Solaria Energia y Medio Ambiente, SA (represented by: L. Ruessmann, avocat, and M. J. Beck, Solicitor), Council of the European Union (represented by: H. Marcos Fraile, acting as Agent, and N. Tuominen, Avocată), European Commission (represented by: A. Demeneix, T. Maxian Rusche and J.-F. Brakeland, acting as Agents), China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products (CCCME) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis and A. Scalini, avocats, F. Di Gianni, avvocato)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2) | Orders SolarWorld AG to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders SolarWorld AG to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union;

| 3) | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3)

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 232, 27.06.2016.

1

---
SERVED: MAY 22,2014 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

SPIRIT AVIONICS, LTD. 

DOCKET NO. FAA-2014-0119 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2012-GL-07-0056) has been 

assigned to Administrative Law Judge J.E. Sullivan. All future pleadings and other 

communications regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing 

Attachment - Service List 
SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC--430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W10001 

ONE COPY 

Jerry A. Eichenberger, Respondent's Counsel 

EICHENBERGER & ASSOCIATES 

6037 Frantz Road, Suite 107 

Dublin, OH 43017 

TEL: 614-798-1600 

FAJ(: 614-798-1620 

Kate Barber, Complainant's Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration, AGL-7 

2300 East Devon Avenue 

Des Plaines, IL 60018-4696 

TEL: 847-294-7862 

FAJ(: 847-294:..7498 

Hon. J.E. Sullivan, Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings; M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-6941 

FAJ(: 202-366-7536 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0119 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 

Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WIOOO, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

-2-
null

482.65924
# C_2017161EN.01001802.xml

| 22.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/18

---

Order of the President of the Court of 6 March 2017 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, intervener: French Republic

(Case C-511/16) (1)

1

(2017/C 161/25)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 441, 28.11.2016.

1

---
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]



# United States Court of Appeals

**For the First Circuit**

No. 00-1213 LISA TSARELKA, Plaintiff, Appellant,

v. KENNETH S. APFEL, Defendant, Appellee. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Mark L. Wolf, U.S. District Judge ] Before Torruella, Chief Judge , Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges .
Lisa Tsarelka on brief pro se. Donald K. Stern , United States Attorney, and Anita Johnson , Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
October 3, 2000-2- Per Curiam . Appellant Lisa Tsarelka appeals from the dismissal of her complaint. The district court dismissed the complaint, by endorsement, based on the reasons set out in the motion to dismiss filed by appellee, KennethS. Apfel, the Commissioner of Social Security. There was no error in the action of the district court and the court's judgment is affirmed for essentially the reasons set out in the motion to dismiss.

We add onlythat despite appellant's arguments to the contrary, she has submitted no evidence that she ever had presented her claim regarding the termination of her Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits to an administrat ive law judge (ALJ) or the Appeals Council. Neither the ALJ nor the Council ever addressed such a claim. Further, the Appeals Council's reference to the amount of appellant's resources was made in a particular, limited co ntext. That is, this reference was made to explain the Council's opinion that, given the little money appellant had at her disposal in May 1997, repayment of $3,378 would not further the purpose of the SSI program. Significantly, the-3-

Appeals Council did not make the comment inrelation to the question whether appellant qualified for SSI benefits.

Affirmed . See Local Rule 27(c).
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

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

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

November 1, 2010

Order 

November 1, 2010

140603 (52)(53)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

SC: 140603

v COA: 287689

Ingham CC: 08-000249-FH

RANDALL LEE DOWDY,

Defendant-Appellee.

____________________________________

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion by the Prosecuting Attorneys 

Association of Michigan for leave to participate in oral argument is considered and it is 

DENIED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6974

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WILLIAM KEITH PATTERSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief

District Judge. (CR-96-154-MU; CA-01-278)

Submitted: December 21, 2005 Decided: April 3, 2006

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Keith Patterson, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

William Keith Patterson seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.

An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255

proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000).

A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable

jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of his

constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Patterson has not made the requisite

showing. Accordingly, we deny Patterson’s motion for a certificate

of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
# 2016_06 Pivot Table 5A

# Table 5 Details

&F	

&P/&N