alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 38 (Tuesday, February 27, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 8776]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3362]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[ES-966-1910-BK, Group 25, Maine]


Notice of Filing of Plat of Survey; Maine

    The plat of the dependent resurvey and survey of the boundaries of 
the Passamaquoddy Tribal Reservation lands held in trust by the United 
States, in Indian Township, Washington County, Maine, will be 
officially filed in Eastern States, Springfield, Virginia at 7:30 a.m., 
30 calendar days from the date of publication in the Federal Register.
    The survey was requested by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
    All inquiries or protests concerning the technical aspects of the 
survey must be sent to the Chief Cadastral Surveyor, Eastern States, 
Bureau of Land Management, 7450 Boston Boulevard, Springfield, Virginia 
22153.
    Copies of the plat will be made available upon request and 
prepayment of the reproduction fee of $2.75 per copy.

    Dated: February 16, 2007.
Jerry L. Wahl,
(Acting) Chief Cadastral Surveyor.
[FR Doc. E7-3362 Filed 2-26-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-GJ-P
<PAGE>

Exhibit 99.2

                  WRITTEN STATEMENT OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

            Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I,
the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of C2, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby
certify, based on my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the
Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



---------------------------------
William T. Donovan
November 12, 2002


                                       23
Revised 8/16/05 :

Page 1 of

6

POST FOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT

Case Number: P040624 Assessor: Wormell

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES

Scenario#: 1 Number of Release Sites:

Release Activity:

Release Description: WATER LANDFILL INCINER LAND/INCIN FUGITIVE

Total Releases: 0

(kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr)

Release Days/yr:

Per Site Release:

(kg/day) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/day)

Remarks:POST FOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT --- Page 2 of 6

CASE NUMBER: P040624POST FOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT Page 3 of 6

CASE NUMBER: P040624Page 4 of 6

POST FOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT

Case Number: P040624 Assessor: Wormell

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES

Scenario#: 2 Nu m ber of Release Sites:

Release Activity:

Release Description: WATER LANDFILL INCINER LAND/INCIN FUGITIVE

Total Releases:

(kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr)

Release Days/yr:

Per Site Release:

(kg/day) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/day)

Remarks:POST FOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT Page 5 of

6

CASE NUMBER:P040624POST FOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT Page 6 of 6

CASE NUMBER: P040624
(Reap. Dec. 8639)

Entry No. 700786, etc.

#### The Danwill Company *v.*United States

(Decided September 7, 1956)

*John D. Rode*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Laweence, Judge:

The appeals for a reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” attached to and made part of this decision, present the question of the proper value for dutiable purposes of certain binder mechanisms imported from France.

The parties hereto have entered into a stipulation of fact whereby it has been agreed that, on or about the dates of exportation of the *499said merchandise, such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the countries of exportation in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for home consumption or for export to the United States, and that such or similar imported merchandise was not, at the aforesaid time, freely offered for sale in the United States for domestic consumption therein. It was further stipulated and agreed that cost of production is represented by the invoice unit prices, less charges for transport, freight, and insurance, as invoiced, packed.

Upon the agreed facts of record, I find and hold that cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. O. § 1402 (f)), is the proper basis of value for the binder mechanisms in controversy, and that said value is represented by the invoice unit prices, less charges for transport, freight, and insurance, as invoiced, packed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARIUS GAINES, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-0018 FCD GGH P

vs.

DARRELL G. ADAMS, Warden, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER & WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

 / AD TESTIFICANDUM

Darius Gaines, inmate CDC# P-64072, a necessary and material witness in

proceedings in this case on July 25, 2005, is confined in California Substance Abuse Treatment

Facility and State Prison, 900 Quebec Avenue, PO Box 7100, Corcoran, California 93212, in the

custody of the Warden Derral Adams; in order to secure this inmate’s attendance it is necessary

that a Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum issue commanding the custodian to produce the

inmate in Court, 8th Floor, Courtroom 24, United States Courthouse, 501 I Street, Sacramento,

California on July 25, 2005, at 9:00 a.m. 

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. A Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum issue, under the seal of this court,

commanding the Warden to produce the inmate named above to testify in United States District

Court at the time and place above, and from day to day until completion of court proceedings or

as ordered by the court; and thereafter to return the inmate to the above institution; 

2. The custodian is ordered to notify the court of any change in custody of this

inmate and is ordered to provide the new custodian with a copy of this writ; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a courtesy copy of this order and

writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum on the Out-To-Court Desk, California State Prison -

Sacramento, P.O. Box 290007, Represa, California 95671.

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM

To: Warden Derrel Adams, California State Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison,

900 Quebec Avenue, PO Box 7100, Corcoran, California 93212:

WE COMMAND you to produce the inmate named above to testify before the

United States District Court at the time and place above, and from day to day until completion of

the proceedings or as ordered by the court; and thereafter to return the inmate to the above

institution.

FURTHER, you have been ordered to notify the court of any change in custody

of the inmate and have been ordered to provide the new custodian with a copy of this writ.

DATED: 5/17/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

/gain0018.841 

Case 2:04-cv-00018-FCD-GGH Document 31 Filed 05/18/05 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6785

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

RONALD SMITH,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. James H. Michael, Jr.,

Senior District Judge. (CR-92-58)

Submitted: September 9, 1999 Decided: September 15, 1999

Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on

April 8, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was

entered on the docket sheet on April 13, 1999. Pursuant to Rules

58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the

date that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as

the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson

v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

2

PER CURIAM:

Ronald Smith appeals the district court’s orders denying his

motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence and

denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s orders and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See

United States v. Smith, No. CR-92-58 (W.D. Va. Apr. 13, 1999* & May

20, 1999). 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
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEE ANDREW REED,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0936 LKK GGH P

vs.

S. HAFERKAMP, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prison inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil

rights action. On July 19, 2006, plaintiff filed his fourth request for the appointment of counsel. 

Plaintiff's previous requests were filed on May 15, 2006, June 7, 2006, and June 29, 2006. All

requests were denied. In light of those orders, plaintiff’s July 19, 2006, request is denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s July 19, 2006, motion

for appointment of counsel is denied.

DATED: 7/26/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:bb

reed0936.31f

Case 2:04-cv-00936-LKK -GGH Document 48 Filed 07/26/06 Page 1 of 1
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNN GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AIJSI-IN 
Dr. LO. Toule, Prw&b&at, page 2 

reiitted 

c 

the appllaant, under the name 01 301. 

Rogers, t4 take the minatlon subjeat to 

l pprwaldterobta%nlnga rullngfromy~ur department* Ro@M8 has parsed the oSWd.natien, 

aad the pueslifbion now is whether o? aot he 18 

en?ltled to a ltaoaf3~~ 

l 8ererallaonthsa~~~~wauraoaPlp~iat 

filed ia Eaxrla uouuty is&ninst Sol. f. Ro@m8 

SW praatioing Optaswtry nitho*.a lloenee~ 0a 

lhpo dirferent oomplalntr the ahaX&08 noxa' tlU+ 

ai88a&, at the requed of the Dirtrlot Attorney, 

and QII the third eom~laint3he drlonaant;~Sol~ 

t. Rogera, waei IOU not eullty.* 

ArMalma 598s ana 69% ot~ths~Rovi5abClrilstatutee ma4 a8 fd.laet 

4$&rte 59S09 3henever a4 prawn ahall 

uhange hi@ orlglmii naxm and adopt another, it 

sbau. not operate to.~lease h5.m fiapr my XWsponsibillty whldh h&May have inaurmd by the 

original n~ame nor defeet~or4le~trop 6uaY rl@ts 

ur property br aotion rhloh the person had or 

held +I his ori&inal nam¶** 

Rbferrfng to examlnatiqpls 

akamlnaxa in optolzbstxy, Art1a1s 3 

'sgh;~fi~8~fij& 

w&ah applumnt ehall be given duo aotfoe 

ai: the data and glaoe of examlnatfon~ All et 

batloos sha.11 .be~ aoiiduated Sm writing and 

bf gt~oh other sea@ as the board shall deter- 
Dr. Ji.0. Toule, Proeiceat, pge 3 

mine adequate to asoertain the qusllfitmtiona’ 

Of~aj&+utk, aa& in &oh maunec as ehall be 

SntiZo~ fair and impartial to all indiv~duaJ.8 

ad wox .rOOo(pl5~a 8~hOOi Of OphM¶~. AU 

applio6nb era;;inad at the 8aue time 8hall be 

&iV8@ iduo*iOti @&3'&iOlI8r .Phe beard may wetube to a&ilt prsona to its esanii.nuti* or to 

issue l&mums for pap orthe rollawing ma* 

rcPI# 

‘1. Ti8 presentation to the bokpd of any 

untrue mtatement ox any doaumsnt or te8tUonp 

g3.aa.a; Ule@Uly ox $mwlulently obtaiaed, 

T 

d or doaeit ha8 been praotlaed in 

pcioslng.tp eraslnatlosi.~ 

Tipweiore, you are reipedfully dvised that it 

.te the opinion of thl8 d&tprtmeZlt that the r-8 stats 

i3wd 0r imwbl21) in optoarstrjr ~0~16 not ba jU5tima 

or hare the authorlty~.to withhold a liaenas to pracltloe 

optometry from Sol; J, BOaer5. 

Trwstlng that tha foregolag fully answeri pour 
r39: 

Dr. W3. iowls, Prasibsnt, page 4 

. 

.” 

., 

‘2 

- . _. ..-
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLICACCOUNTING FIRM

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the RegistrationStatement on Form S-8 (No. 33-57109) of International Aluminum Corporation ofour report dated August 19, 2004 relating to the financial statements,which appears in the Annual Report to Shareholders, which is incorporated inthis Annual Report on Form 10-K.  Wealso consent to the incorporation by reference of our report datedAugust 19, 2004 relating to the financial statement schedule, whichappears in this Form 10-K.

 

 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

 

Los Angeles, California

September 21, 2004

 

----
#### Allen LEBEDUN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Alton BASKERVILLE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 01-6099.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 12, 2001.

Decided April 18, 2001.

Allen Lebedun, pro se.

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Allen Lebedun appeals from a district court order dismissing without prejudice his petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2000). The court dismissed Lebedun’s petition because he failed to pay the filing fee as directed. Because Lebedun may proceed with this action in the district court by complying with the court’s order, his appeal is interlocutory and not subject to appellate review. *See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392,*10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir.1993).

Accordingly, we deny Lebedun’s motion for relief from judgment, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.*
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1024 KA 12-01871**  PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, VALENTINO, WHALEN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V OPINION AND ORDER
ROBERT M. KNAPP, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 2.)

CHARLES MARANGOLA, MORAVIA, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
JON E. BUDELMANN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, AUBURN (CHRISTOPHER T. VALDINA OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Cayuga County Court (Mark H. Fandrich, A.J.), rendered September 25, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of endangering the welfare of a child.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law, that part of the omnibus motion seeking to suppress defendant’s statements is granted, and a new trial is granted on count two of the indictment.
Same Opinion by P ERADOTTO , J. as in People v Knapp ([appeal No. 1] ___ AD3d ___ [Nov. 14, 2014]).

Entered: November 14, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
Bulletin No. 2017-16

BS - 1

DRAFT IRC Handout 12 05 17

Line

No.

USSGL

Acct. USSGL Account Title Begin/End Fed/NonFed Reporting Type Code Addl. Info.

3 131900 Allowance for Loss on Accounts Receivable E F E/U

19 240000

Liability for Nonfiduciary Deposit Funds and Undeposited 

Collections E Z E/U

27 240000

Liability for Nonfiduciary Deposit Funds and Undeposited 

Collections E N/Z E/U

Part 2 Fiscal Year 2018 Reporting

SUPPLEMENT Section V

USSGL Crosswalk - Balance Sheet
Personal communication with D. Bottcher , July 2010 .

Soil and Water Engineering Technology , Inc
. Cost estimates for owner/ty pical agricultural control programs from SWET (2008a) are still applicable in 2010.
CERTIFICATE OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
                                       OF
                    MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING V, L.P.

            This Certificate of Limited Partnership of Merrill Lynch Preferred
Funding V, L.P. (the "Partnership"), dated as of January 8, 1998, is being duly
executed and filed by Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., a Delaware corporation, as
general partner, to form a limited partnership under the Delaware Revised
Uniform Limited Partnership Act (6 Del. C. ss.17-101, et seq.).

            (a) Name. The name of the limited partnership formed hereby is
Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding V, L.P.

            (b) Registered Office. The address of the registered office of the
Partnership in the State of Delaware is c/o CT Corporation, Corporate Trust
Center, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801.

            (c) Registered Agent. The name and address of the registered agent
for service of process on the Partnership in the State of Delaware is CT
Corporation, Corporate Trust Center, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, Delaware
19801.

            (d) General Partner. The name and the business mailing address of
the sole general partner of the Partnership is: Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., a
Delaware corporation, World Financial Center, North Tower, 250 Vesey Street, New
York, New York 10281.

            IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate of
Limited Partnership as of the date first written above.

                                        Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.,
                                        as sole general partner


                                        By: /s/ THERESA LANG
                                            --------------------------
                                            Name:  Theresa Lang
                                            Title: Senior Vice President
                                                   and Treasurer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DAVID DE SOUZA,

PLAINTIFF, : CIVIL ACTION

 :

v. :

 :

EUGENE POLKALSKI, et al, :

DEFENDANTS : NO. 02-4449

O R D E R

AND NOW, this day of December, 2002, the Plaintiff

having failed to pay the appropriate filing fee as required by

this Court’s Order Dated October 31, 2002, it is hereby ORDERED

that this matter is CLOSED. 

AND IT IS SO ORDERED

______________________________

Clarence C. Newcomer, S.J. 

Case 2:02-cv-04449-CN Document 3 Filed 12/04/2002 Page 1 of 1
----

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4369 — Macquarie/Corona)

(2006/C 244/09)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 12 September2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

----
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAMON BRINDLE, )

) CIV NO. S-04-590 GEB

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER RE SETTLEMENT AND

) DISPOSITION

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, )

an Illinois corporation, )

) 

Defendant. )

)

On June 9, 2005, Defendant’s counsel notified chambers by

telephone that this case has settled. The parties have until 4:30

p.m. on July 13, 2005, to either file a document dismissing this

action or to lodge a proposed order which could effect dismissal. 

See L.R. 16-160(b). Failure to respond by this deadline may be

construed as consent to dismissal of this action without prejudice

and a dismissal order may be filed. See L.R. 16-160(b) (“A failure

to file dispositional papers on the date prescribed by the Court

may be grounds for sanctions.”).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 13, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00590-GEB-DAD Document 23 Filed 06/13/05 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 32

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



     The undersigned  executive  officers of the Registrant  hereby certify that
this  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the  quarter  ended June 30,  2003 (the
"Report") fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities  Exchange Act of 1934,  and the  information  contained in the Report
fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial condition and results
of operations of the Registrant.


                                        By: /s/ Gary C. Loraditch
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Name: Gary C. Loraditch
                                            Title: President



                                        By: /s/ Bonnie M. Klein
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Name: Bonnie M. Klein
                                            Title: Vice President and Treasurer

Date: August 13, 2003
# C_2019025EN.01003901.xml

| 21.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 25/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 25/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 November 2018 — Barata v Parliament

(Case T-854/16) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2015 promotion procedure - Certification procedure - Exclusion from the definitive list of officials authorised to follow the training programme - Article 45a of the Staff Regulations - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Equal treatment - Rights of the defence))

(2019/C 25/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: João Miguel Barata (Evere, Belgium) (represented by: G. Pandey, D. Rovetta, lawyers, and J. Grayston, solicitor)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: D. Nessaf and Í. Ní Riagáin Düro, agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU and seeking annulment, first, of the Parliament’s decision dated 29 January 2016 and the confirmatory decision dated 29 March 2016 not to include the applicant’s name on the list of officials authorised to participate in 2015 in the training programme in respect of the 2015 certification procedure, secondly, of the decision dated 25 August 2016 rejecting the complaint, thirdly, of Notice of internal competition 2015/023, communicated to the staff on 18 September 2015, and, fourthly, of the draft list of officials selected to participate in the training programme in question.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr João Miguel Barata to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr João Miguel Barata to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 38, 6.2.2017.

---