alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v HAROLD L. BROWN, Seaman Recruit, U. S. Navy, Appellant

15 USCMA 67, 35 CMR 39

No. 17,983

October 2, 1964

*Lieutenant John Thomas Montag,*USNE, was on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*Major J. M. Detrio,*USMCE, was on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam:

Tried by special court-martial, the accused was, pursuant to his pleas of guilty, convicted of leaving his appointed place of duty, absence without leave, larceny of United States currency, and wrongful appropriation of a wristwatch, in violation of Uniform Code of Military Justice, Articles 86 and 121, 10 USC §§ 886, 921, respectively. He was sentenced to bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of $55.00 per month for six months, and confinement at hard labor for six months. Intermediate appellate authorities have affirmed and the accused now petitions for review by this Court, alleging that his plea of guilty to the count of wrongful appropriation was improvident.

Following entry of his pleas and return by the court-martial of findings of guilty based thereon, accused elected to testify in mitigation and extenuation. He declared that he had borrowed the allegedly wrongfully appropriated watch from its rightful owner to use during his tour of duty, the owner declaring that he was “welcome to use it.” Upon being relieved, it “was so late and I was sleepy and I forgot to take the watch back.” He did not get an opportunity to return the timepiece prior to its owner’s departure from the station. He, however, intended to return it.

In light of accused’s testimony, it is clear that the providence of his plea of guilty to wrongful appropriation was placed in issue, and it was incumbent upon the president of the court-martial to afford him an opportunity to withdraw such testimony and maintain his plea or to enter a plea of not guilty on his behalf. Code, supra, Article. 45, 10 USC § 845; United States v Thomas, *6814 USCMA 223, 34 CMR 3; United States v Stanaway, 12 USCMA 552, 31 CMR 138; United States v Epperson, 10 USCMA 582, 28 CMR 148.

The petition for review is granted. The decision of the board of review is reversed, and the record of trial is returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Navy. The board of review may reassess the sentence on the remaining findings of guilty or direct a rehearing as to specification 2 of the Additional Charge and the sentence.
CERTIFICATIONS
 
 
 I, Bruce P. Young, certify that;
 
 (1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form10-QSB of Corumel Minerals Corp.;
 
 (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; 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 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 other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of the internal control over financial
 reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of 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.
 
 Date: February 10, 2004
 
 
 _______/s/ Bruce P. Young_                _
 By: Bruce P. Young
 Title: Principal Executive Officer and
 Principal Financial Officer
   1
### -80 -79 -78 -77 -76 -75 -74 38 39 40 41 

## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 

### 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 08/23 

## NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

# Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 23 Aug 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.92 N 77.01 WMeters AGL 

## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■



## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■ 

## ★ ● ● ●



## ★ ● ● ● ●
No. 64133.

protests 181679-K, etc. (San Francisco).

#### James Barclay & Co., Ltd., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C.C.P.A. 130, C.A.D. 508), and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C.D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4593 

To amend title 28, United States Code, to authorize removal of a civil 

action or criminal prosecution against a President, Vice President, former 

President, or former Vice President. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 18, 2024 

Mr. TILLIS (for himself, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. HAWLEY, Mr. SCHMITT, Mr. 

BUDD, and Mr. LEE) introduced the following bill; which was read twice 

and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 28, United States Code, to authorize removal 

of a civil action or criminal prosecution against a President, Vice President, former President, or former Vice 

President. 

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 ‘‘No More Political 

5 Prosecutions Act of 2024’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REMOVAL OF CERTAIN ACTIONS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1442(a) of title 28, 

8 United States Code, is amended— 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 4593 IS

1 (1) in paragraph (3), by striking the semicolon 

2 and inserting a period; and 

3 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

4 ‘‘(5) The President or Vice President, or a 

5 former President or Vice President.’’. 

6 (b) APPLICATION.—The amendments made by sub7 section (a) shall apply to civil actions and criminal pros8 ecutions pending on or commenced on or after the date 

9 of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Edward A. Stern, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-KSB/A (Amendment No. 1) of Kreisler Manufacturing Corporation; and

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.



|                                        
|----------------------------------------
|/s/ Edward A. Stern                     
|Edward A. Stern, Chief Financial Officer
|                                        
|Date: October 29, 2007
##### 



EXHIBIT 32
 WRITTEN STATEMENT PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    
    Information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.
 /s/
Dennis R. GlassDennis R. GlassChief Executive OfficerMarch 23, 2006/s/
Theresa M. StoneTheresa M. StoneChief Financial OfficerMarch 23, 2006
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BERL KEITH BROWN

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1650 WBS CMK

vs.

CLAIMS BOARD OF THE STATE

OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil rights

action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On December 12, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein, which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections

to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. Plaintiff has filed

objections to the findings and recommendations; the undersigned has considered the objections

and has determined there is no need to modify the findings and recommendations based on the

points raised in the objections.

///

Case 2:04-cv-01650-WBS -CMK Document 25 Filed 01/20/06 Page 1 of 2
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

2

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed December 12, 2005, are adopted in

full;

2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief

can be granted.

DATED: January 19, 2006

Case 2:04-cv-01650-WBS -CMK Document 25 Filed 01/20/06 Page 2 of 2
# C_2007093EN.01001501.xml

| 27.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/15

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Council Directive on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to certain levies, duties, taxes and other measures

COM(2006) 605 final — 2006/0192 (CNS)

(2007/C 93/03)

On 10 November 2006, the Council of the European Union decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 7 December 2006.

At its 432nd plenary session, held on 17 January 2007, the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 156 votes to none and with four abstentions.

| 1. | The Commission has presented a proposal for the codification of the directive in question in order to comply with the decision taken by the Council on 1 April 1987 on the clear formulation of Community legislation (1). |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Commission has presented a proposal for the codification of the directive in question in order to comply with the decision taken by the Council on 1 April 1987 on the clear formulation of Community legislation (1).

1

| 2. | Most of the proposal's 26 articles are the result of the adaptation of the original 1976 text to the many modifications introduced by subsequent legislation. This will have been a lengthy and painstaking task, carried out with the appropriate resources. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Most of the proposal's 26 articles are the result of the adaptation of the original 1976 text to the many modifications introduced by subsequent legislation. This will have been a lengthy and painstaking task, carried out with the appropriate resources.

| 3. | For the EESC to check the exact correspondence of the Commission's work would mean repeating the complex work already done without the necessary resources and with a very short deadline: clearly an impossible task. In any event, the Commission is well known for its professional expertise and this offers assurance that on this occasion as in previous cases of codification, the result will be faultless. |
| --- | --- |

3.

For the EESC to check the exact correspondence of the Commission's work would mean repeating the complex work already done without the necessary resources and with a very short deadline: clearly an impossible task. In any event, the Commission is well known for its professional expertise and this offers assurance that on this occasion as in previous cases of codification, the result will be faultless.

| 4. | In view of the above, the EESC approves the text of the proposal. |
| --- | --- |

4.

In view of the above, the EESC approves the text of the proposal.

Brussels, 17 January 2007.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

---

(1)  COM(87) 868 PV.

1

---
From:       Richard Krock <rkrock@vinylinfo.org>                                                                           
                                                                                                                             
  To:         Jodi Howard/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA                                                                                   
                                                                                                                             
  Date:       09/22/2011 11:32 PM                                                                                            
                                                                                                                             
  Subject:    RE: Follow-up to VI Comments on Gasholders                                                                     
                                                                                                                             





Dear Ms. Howard,

The attachments are submitted as response to provide the requested
information on gasholders per your e-mail request below.  Please do not
hesitate to contact me with any questions or requests further
information.  Thank you.



Richard Krock
Technical Director
The Vinyl Institute
1737 King Street Suite 390
Alexandria, VA 22314
Direct: 571.970.3392
Mobile: 571.216.4474
Fax: 571.970.3271
Email: rkrock@vinylinfo.org
http://www.vinylinfo.org
http://www.vinylindesign.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Howard.Jodi@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Howard.Jodi@epamail.epa.gov]
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 8:21 AM
To: Richard Krock
Subject: Follow-up to VI Comment


Mr. Krock,

VI and some member companies provided comments about gas holders.  One
of the suggestions made for regulatory requirements was that work
practices be employed for gas holders (installation of floating objects
to reduce emissions from the water seal) but there were no cost
estimates or  emission reductions provided with those comments.  Would
you please provide any cost and emissions data that you have regarding
employing work practices for gas holders (i.e. - floating objects)?

Thanks
************************************************************
Jodi Howard, Environmental Engineer
U.S. EPA - Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Program Divisions
Refining and Chemicals Group
Mail Code:  E143-01
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Phone:  919-541-4607                Fax:  919-541-0246

(See attached file: VI Response to EPA Inquiry on Gasholder Information
09-23-11.pdf)(See attached file: Gasholder VC Emissions Study at
Montreal Polytechnic A&WMA Feb 2004.pdf)
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4627 

To authorize additional appropriations for fiscal year 2025 for solid waste 

disposal systems of the Army, with an offset. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 20, 2024 

Mr. WELCH (for himself and Ms. MURKOWSKI) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To authorize additional appropriations for fiscal year 2025 

for solid waste disposal systems of the Army, with an offset. 

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 ‘‘Burn Pit Elimination 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FUNDING FOR SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS OF 

7 THE ARMY. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—The amount otherwise authorized 

9 to be appropriated for fiscal year 2025 for Other Procure10 ment, Army, shall be increased by $8,950,000, with the 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 4627 IS

1 amount of such increase to be available for solid waste 

2 disposal systems. 

3 (b) OFFSET.—The amount otherwise authorized to 

4 be appropriated for fiscal year 2025 for Operations and 

5 Maintenance, Army, Additional Activities, Overseas Oper6 ating Costs, shall be reduced by $8,950,000, with the 

7 amount of such reduction to be derived from amounts for 

8 the use of open-air burn pits in contingency operations. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 26, 2011

p0919 

# Order

September 26, 2011

141062 & (15)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 141062 COA: 296591 Saginaw CC: 08-031656-FH JOHN SATTERWHITE FRANKLIN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

By order of July 20, 2011, the prosecutin g attorney was direct ed to answer the application for leave to appeal the March 24, 2010 order of the Court of Appeals. On order of the Court, the answer having been received, the appli cation for leave to appeal is again considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302 (H)(1), in lieu of gran ting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeal s for consideration as on leave granted.
No. 50049.

#### Protests 28786-K, etc., of Collin & Gissel et al. (Galveston, etc.).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the-court dismissed the protests.
<PAGE>

21. Subsidiaries of the registrant

                            WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARIES

Keithley International Investment Corporation
28775 Aurora Road, Cleveland, Ohio 44139, U.S.A.

Keithley Foreign Sales Corporation
5 Norre Gade, Charlotte Amalie
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands 00801

FRANCE: Keithley Instruments SARL
Batiment Aristote
Parc des Algorithmes
Route de l'Orme aux Merisiers
91190 SAINT AUBIN

GERMANY: Keithley Instruments GmbH
Landsberger Strasse 65
82110 Germering (Munich)

GREAT BRITAIN: Keithley Instruments Ltd.
Unit 2 Commerce Park, Brunel Road
Theale, Berkshire RG7 4AB

ITALY: Keithley Instruments SRL
Viale San Gimignano 38
20146 Milano

JAPAN: Keithley Instruments KK
New Pier Takeshiba North Tower 13F
11-1, Kaigan 1-chome
Minato-ku, Tokyo 105-0022

NETHERLANDS: Keithley Instruments BV
Postbus 559
4200 AN Gorinchem (Amsterdam)
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 80 (Thursday, April 25, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24378-24379]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: C1-2013-06093]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 98

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934; FRL-9789-1]
RIN 2060-AR52

2013 Revisions to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule and Proposed 
Confidentiality Determinations for New or Substantially Revised Data 
Elements

Correction

    In proposed rule document 2013-06093, appearing on pages 19802-
19877 in the issue of Tuesday, April 2, 2013, make the following 
correction:

Sec.  98.173  Calculating GHG emissions. [Corrected]

    On page 19854, the equation titled as ``(Eq. Q-5)'' is corrected to 
read as set forth below:

[[Page 24379]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25AP13.000

[FR Doc. C1-2013-06093 Filed 4-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
```
No. 55943.

protests 169855-K, etc. (New York).

#### Artgift Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

*335Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

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