alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EUR-Lex - 52007AP0187 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52007AP0187

**European Parliament legislative resolution of 22 May 2007 on the joint text approved by the Conciliation Committee for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Financial Instrument for the Environment (LIFE+) (PE-CONS 3611/2007 - C6-0105/2007 - 2004/0218(COD)) **

*
Official Journal 102 E , 24/04/2008 P. 0087 - 0087 *

P6_TA(2007)0187

Financial Instrument for the Environment (LIFE+) ***III

European Parliament legislative resolution of 22 May 2007 on the joint text approved by the Conciliation Committee for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Financial Instrument for the Environment (LIFE+) (PE-CONS 3611/2007 — C6-0105/2007 — 2004/0218(COD))

(Codecision procedure: third reading)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the joint text approved by the Conciliation Committee (PE-CONS 3611/2007 — C6-0105/2007),

- having regard to its position at first reading [1] on the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2004)0621) [2],

- having regard to the amended Commission proposal (COM(2004)0621/2) [2],

- having regard to its position at second reading [3] on the Council common position [4],

- having regard to the Commission's opinion on Parliament's amendments to the common position (COM(2006)0759) [2],

- having regard to Article 251(5) of the EC Treaty,

- having regard to Rule 65 of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the report of its delegation to the Conciliation Committee (A6-0180/2007);

1. Approves the joint text and draws attention to the Commission statement thereon;

2. Instructs its President to sign the act with the President of the Council pursuant to Article 254(1) of the EC Treaty;

3. Instructs its Secretary-General to sign the act, once it has been verified that all the procedures have been duly completed, and, in agreement with the Secretary-General of the Council, to have it published in the Official Journal of the European Union;

4. Instructs its President to forward this legislative resolution to the Council and Commission.

[1] OJ C 157 E, 6.7.2006, p. 451.

[2] Not yet published in OJ.

[3] Texts Adopted, 24.10.2006, P6_TA(2006)0431.

[4] OJ C 238 E, 3.10.2006, p. 1.

--------------------------------------------------
No. 53013.

#### Charles Boas et al. *v.*United States,

protests 62322-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

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

BENJAMIN D. TERRITO,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1460 MCE PAN P

vs.

RICHARD W. SANDHAM, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On March 13, 2006, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. See Fed.

R. Civ. P. 56. Plaintiff has not opposed the motion. 

Local Rule 78-230(m) provides in part: “Failure of the responding party to file

written opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any

opposition to the granting of the motion . . . .” On September 1, 2004, plaintiff was advised of

the requirements for filing an opposition to the motion and that failure to oppose such a motion

may be deemed a waiver of opposition to the motion. 

Local Rule 11-110 provides that failure to comply with the Local Rules “may be

grounds for imposition of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the

inherent power of the Court.” In the order filed September 1, 2004, plaintiff was advised that 

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01460-MCE -EFB Document 52 Filed 05/25/06 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

failure to comply with the Local Rules may result in a recommendation that the action be 

dismissed.

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff has 30 days from

the date of this order to file an opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Failure

to file an opposition will be deemed as a statement of non-opposition and shall result in a

recommendation that this action be dismissed pursuant Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

DATED: May 24, 2006.

\004

\terr1460.46osc jfm

Case 2:04-cv-01460-MCE -EFB Document 52 Filed 05/25/06 Page 2 of 2
# EUR-Lex - 52007AP0176 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52007AP0176

**European Parliament legislative resolution of 10 May 2007 on the Council common position for adopting a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles ('Framework Directive') (9911/3/2006 - C6-0040/2007 - 2003/0153(COD)) **

*
Official Journal 076 E , 27/03/2008 P. 0094 - 0094 *

P6_TA(2007)0176

Approval of motor vehicles and their trailers ***II

European Parliament legislative resolution of 10 May 2007 on the Council common position for adopting a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles ("Framework Directive") (9911/3/2006 — C6-0040/2007 — 2003/0153(COD))

(Codecision procedure: second reading)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the Council common position (9911/3/2006 — C6-0040/2007),

- having regard to its position at first reading [1] on the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2003)0418) [2],

- having regard to the amended Commission proposal (COM(2004)0738) [2],

- having regard to Article 251(2) of the EC Treaty,

- having regard to Rule 62 of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the recommendation for second reading of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (A6-0145/2007);

1. Approves the common position as amended;

2. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission.

[1] OJ C 97 E, 22.4.2004, p. 370.

[2] Not yet published in OJ.

--------------------------------------------------
<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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 Annual Report of Case Financial, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, Eric A. Alden, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Steven
D. Gershick, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. (S) 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.

/s/ Eric A. Alden
----------------------------
Eric A. Alden
Chief Executive Officer
December 30, 2002


/s/ Steven D. Gershick
----------------------------
Steven D. Gershick
Chief Financial Officer
December 30, 2002
No. 52296.

protests 123058-K, etc. (Baltimore, etc.).

#### S. S. Kresge Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

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

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4605 

To authorize the appropriation of amounts for the construction of a battle 

management combined operations complex at Robins Air Force Base, Georgia. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 20, 2024 

Mr. OSSOFF introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To authorize the appropriation of amounts for the construction of a battle management combined operations complex at Robins Air Force Base, Georgia. 

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 ‘‘Robins Facilities En5 hancement Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 4605 IS

1 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF AMOUNTS FOR CONSTRUCTION 

2 OF A BATTLE MANAGEMENT COMBINED OP3 ERATIONS COMPLEX AT ROBINS AIR FORCE 

4 BASE, GEORGIA. 

5 There is authorized to be appropriated to the Sec6 retary of Defense for fiscal year 2025 $64,000,000 for the 

7 construction of a battle management combined operations 

8 complex at Robins Air Force Base, Georgia. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VICTORIA HERNANDEZ, )

) CIV. S-04-1747 GEB PAN

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER CONTINUING STATUS

) (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING)

STEVE MARTINEZ, ) CONFERENCE

)

Defendant. )

)

Plaintiff’s Status Report, filed on August 17, 2005, reveals

that the Magistrate Judge has under submission the default judgment of

Defendant. Therefore, the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference set

for August 22, 2005, is continued to October 31, 2005, at 9:00 a.m. 

Plaintiff shall file a status report no later than October 17. 2005,

in which Plaintiff is only required to explain the status of the

default issue.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 12, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge 

Case 2:04-cv-01747-GEB-EFB Document 24 Filed 08/12/05 Page 1 of 1
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

BERNARD RHODES, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2250 DFL GGH P 

vs.

MIKE KNOWLES, Acting Warden, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no

absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d

453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at

any stage of the case “if the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing

§ 2254 Cases. In the present case, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be

served by the appointment of counsel at the present time. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s June 30, 2006 motion

for appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage

of the proceedings.

DATED: 7/26/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:bb/rhod2250.110 

Case 2:04-cv-02250-JAM-GGH Document 14 Filed 07/27/06 Page 1 of 1
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

JAMES JIMINEZ,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1532 LKK JFM P

vs.

 E. TOWNSELL, et al.,

Defendants ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a former county jail inmate proceeding pro se, 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 June 22, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Neither

party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01532-LKK -JFM Document 51 Filed 08/05/05 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

1. The findings and recommendations filed June 22, 2005 are adopted in full; and 

2. This action is dismissed for lack of prosecution. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

DATED: August 5, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

/jimi1532.801

Case 2:04-cv-01532-LKK -JFM Document 51 Filed 08/05/05 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1
                                                                    ------------


                          AMERICAN CONTRUCTION COMPANY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                            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 Quarterly Report American Construction Company (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended October 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacities 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 to his knowledge:

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 operation of the Company.



/s/ Jeff Mabry
----------------------------------
Jeff Mabry
President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer
and Director




























--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FORM 10-KSB - October 31, 2003      American Construction Company      Page 14
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

CARL DAVID WHITE,

Plaintiff, 2:04-cv-2276-GEB-GGH-P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, 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 August 4, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings

and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and

which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. 

Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and

recommendations.

Case 2:04-cv-02276-GEB-GGH Document 42 Filed 09/19/05 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 August 4,

2005, are adopted in full; and

2. Defendants Gonzales and Moncayo are dismissed.

Dated: September 16, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02276-GEB-GGH Document 42 Filed 09/19/05 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 3.1.3

CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT

OF

CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

OF

KREISLER MANUFACTURING CORPORATION

The undersigned, a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, in accordance with the provisions of Section 242 of Title 8 of the Delaware Code, does hereby certify:



|1. | The name of the corporation as it appears on the records of the Secretary of State of Delaware is KREISLER MANUFACTURING CORPORATION (the Corporation);
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The date of the incorporation of the Corporation is December 23, 1968;
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------



|3. | The first paragraph of Article Fourth of the Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation is hereby amended and reinstated in its entirety as follows:
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FOURTH. The corporation shall be authorized to issue one class of shares of stock to be designated Common
Stock; the total number of shares which the corporation shall have the authority to issue is 3,000,000; and each such share shall have a par value of $0.125 per share.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said Corporation has caused this certificate to be signed on its behalf this 8th day of December, 1997.



KREISLER MANUFACTURING CORPORATION/s/ Edward L. SternEdward L. SternPresident and Chief Financial Officer
(Reap. Dec. 9495)

#### Murray Jarett *v.*United States

Entry No. 726411.

(Decided August 19, 1959)

*John D. Rode*for the plaintiff.

*George Ooehran Dowh,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

The proper value for dutiable purposes of certain imported glass syringes is before the court for determination.

The parties hereto have entered into a stipulation of fact wherein it has been agreed that at the date of exportation of the merchandise involved herein, namely, glass syringes, manufactured in and exported from Japan to the United States, the market value or the price at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Japan in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, was the invoice unit prices, net packed. It was further stipulated and agreed that, at the date of exportation, there was no higher foreign value for such or similar merchandise.

Upon the agreed facts of record, the court finds and holds that export value, as that value is defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1402(d)), is the proper basis for determining the value of the glass syringes in controversy, and that said value is represented by the invoice unit prices, net packed. As to all other merchandise, the appeal is dismissed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
No. 52015.

#### Best & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 57445-K, etc. (New York).

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 invoices 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 each of the entries involved. The protests were sustained to this extent.
Before the Third Division,

February 14, 1951

No. 55245.

#### Ignaz Strauss & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 130967-K (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of silent butlers similar in all material respects to those the subject of *The Fan Co.*v. *United States*(25 Cust. Ct. 42, C. D. 1261), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
1 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. 97-20100 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

EBENEZER EMEKA NWACHUKWU, also known as Andrew Rich Thompson, also known as Frederick Gary Davis, also known as Howard Ron Wilson, also known as Mark Ray Walters, also known as Taylor Bruce McGauin, also known as Mathew Lee Hendrix,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-96-CV-1773

- - - - - - - - - - June 5, 1998 Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 1

E benezer Emeka Nwachukwu, a federal prisoner (# 70896-079 )

,

moves to proceed i n forma pauperis (“IFP”) from the distric t

court’s dismissal, with prejudice, of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion

to vacate his sentence. Nwachukwu filed his § 2255 motion beforehe was sentenced for the conviction which he is attacking.

The district court was correct in dismissing Nwachukwu’s §

2255 motion , because a criminal defendant ordinarily may not

collaterally attack his sentence until it has been affirmed on

direct appeal. See United States v. Fassler , 858 F.2d 1016, 1019

(5th Cir. 1988). Because Nwachukwu fails to address the ground

upon which his motion was § 2255 motion was dismissed, he fails to

present a nonfrivolous issue for appeal. His motion to proceed IFP

is therefore DENIED. S ee F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 24(a); C arson v. Polley

,

689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). Nwachukwu’s appeal is DISMISSED

as frivolous. 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2.

Under Fassler

, a prisoner is entitled to refile his § 2255

upon the affirmance of his conviction. S ee Fassler

, 85 8 F.2d at

1019. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the district court for

the sole purpose of amending the judgment to reflect that the

dismissal of Nwachukwu’s § 2255 motion was “without prejudice.”

Nwachukwu’s “Motion to Review All Issues in Case” (filed on

August 27, 1997), his “Motion to Remand” (filed on October 23,

1997), his “Motion to Accept 2255 Brief” (filed on December 1,

1997), his “Motion to Withdraw Suspended 2255 Brief” (also filed on

December 1, 1997), his “Notice of Motion to Remand” (filed on

December 12, 1997), and his “Motion to Remand” (filed on January

12, 1998), are DENIED.

IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS;

ADDITIONAL MOTIONS DENIED.
Case 2:04-cv-02352-DFL-PAN   Document 12    Filed 11/14/05   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2012-07-25T21:59:29-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
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

JAMES WHITTENBERG,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2225 GEB PAN P

vs.

V. BORTOLAMEDI, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has filed two requests for an extension of time to file and serve an

opposition to defendants’ April 10, 2006 motion to dismiss. Good cause appearing, IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's June 20, 2006 and July 18, 2006 requests for extension of time are

granted; and

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file and

serve and serve an opposition to defendants’ April 10, 2006 motion to dismiss. Defendants’

reply, if any, shall be filed seven days thereafter.

DATED: July 26, 2006.

12/mp;whit2225.36

Case 2:04-cv-02225-GEB-EFB Document 29 Filed 07/27/06 Page 1 of 1