alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2007041EN.01000201.xml

| 24.2.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 41/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.2.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 41/2

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 41/02)

| Date of adoption of the decision | — |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of the aid | N 271/06 |
| Member State | Denmark |
| Region | — |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Lempelse af afgift for levering af industriel overskudsvarme |
| Legal basis | L 80 B; vedtaget af Folketinget 16. december 2005 (Forslag til lov om ændring af forskellige afgiftslove) |
| Type of measure | Aid scheme |
| Objective | Environmental protection |
| Form of aid | — |
| Budget | Annual budget: DKK 15 million; Overall budget: DKK 150 million |
| Intensity | Measure does not constitute aid |
| Duration | — |
| Economic sectors | Energy |
| Name and address of the granting authority | — |
| Other information | — |

Date of adoption of the decision

—

Reference number of the aid

N 271/06

Member State

Denmark

Region

—

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Lempelse af afgift for levering af industriel overskudsvarme

Legal basis

L 80 B; vedtaget af Folketinget 16. december 2005 (Forslag til lov om ændring af forskellige afgiftslove)

Type of measure

Aid scheme

Objective

Environmental protection

Form of aid

—

Budget

Annual budget: DKK 15 million; Overall budget: DKK 150 million

Intensity

Measure does not constitute aid

Duration

—

Economic sectors

Energy

Name and address of the granting authority

—

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/

---
EXHIBIT 32.01

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to the requirements set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Exchange Act"), and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. § 1350), Paul L. Berns, the President and Chief Executive Officer of
Allos Therapeutics, Inc., and David C. Clark, the Vice President, Finance of Allos Therapeutics, Inc. (the "Company"), each hereby certifies that, to the best of his
knowledge:

Dated:
March 1, 2010

/s/ Paul L. Berns Paul L. Berns
President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)/s/ David C. Clark David C. Clark
Vice President, Finance and Treasurer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)


A
signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its Staff upon
request. This certification "accompanies" the Form 10-K to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by
reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the
Form 10-K), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

---



QuickLinks
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration 

          - [TA-W-59,946] 

                    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273), and Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974, (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance on September 14, 2006, applicable to workers of International Textile Group, New York Sales Office, New York, New York. The notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on September 26, 2006 (71 FR 56171).                 

At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers were engaged in the sales of textiles produced at affiliated manufactories. 

Information from the State shows that workers separated from employment at the subject firm had their wages reported under separate unemployment insurance (UI) tax accounts for International Textile Group, New York Sales Office which is comprised of Burlington Worldwide, Burlington House and Cone Denim. 

Accordingly, the Department is amending the certification to properly reflect this matter. 

The amended notice applicable to TA-W-59,946 is hereby issued as follows: 

“All workers of the International Textile Group, New York Sales Office which is comprised on Burlington Worldwide, Burlington House and Cone Denim, New York, New York, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after August 16, 2005 through September 14, 2008, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 and are also eligible to apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974.”

Signed at Washington, DC, this 2nd day of March 2007. 

Richard Church, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E7-4574 Filed 3-13-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
No. 64899.

#### Associated Commercial Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 726794-G, etc. (Portland, Oreg.).

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.
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

EARNEST S. HARRIS, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-1906 FCD KJM P

vs.

BILL LOCKYER, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On April 13, 2005, this court ordered that petitioner’s motion to

vacate his sentence because of respondent’s failure to comply with court deadlines be disregarded

because petitioner had not served respondent’s counsel.

On April 25, 2005, petitioner renewed his motion, which has been served on

counsel. He argues that respondent did not timely file his answer and has not served him with

copies of the documents lodged with the court in support of the answer.

Respondent filed his answer on March 25, 2005, within the time granted to him in

this court’s order of March 17, 2005. Moreover, even a total failure to respond would not entitle

petitioner to habeas relief. See Gordon v. Duran, 895 F.2d 610, 612 (9th Cir. 1990). 

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01906-GEB-CKD Document 27 Filed 05/02/05 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

Petitioner’s second basis for the motion is that respondent has failed to serve him

with the state court records lodged in connection with the answer. These documents are all part

of the state court proceedings that petitioner litigated in pro per and thus copies should be in his

possession. Indeed, he has attached the Superior Court ruling on his state petition as Exhibit A in

support of his federal habeas petition. There is no requirement in the local rules that respondent

serve petitioner with these records, which should be equally accessible to petitioner. 

L.R. 81-191 (f). 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that petitioner’s April 25, 2005 motion for

reconsideration of his motion to grant his petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied. 

DATED: May 2, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

2

harr1906.mot

Case 2:04-cv-01906-GEB-CKD Document 27 Filed 05/02/05 Page 2 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

27

28 

1 

ORDER – CASE NO. S-04-1855 FCD 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - SACRAMENTO DIVISION 

KEITH T. TOWNS, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE COMPANY, 

TOWN AND COUNTRY TITLE 

SERVICES, INC., NORTH AMERICAN 

TITLE COMPANY, and DOES 1 TO 10, 

inclusive, 

Defendants. 

CASE NO. S-04-1855 FCD PAN 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT 

AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE 

COMPANY’S MOTION TO STAY 

PROCEEDINGS AND TO SUSPEND ALL 

PRETRIAL DEADLINES AND TRIAL 

DATE 

This matter is before the court on defendant Ameriquest Mortgage Company’s Motion to 

Stay Proceedings and to Suspend all Pretrial Deadlines and Trial Date (the “Motion”). Having 

considered defendant’s moving papers and plaintiff Keith Towns’ non-opposition thereto, and 

good cause appearing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Motion is GRANTED as follows: 

1. This action is hereby STAYED pending a final determination from the Judicial 

Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the “Panel”) whether this action will be deemed a “tag-along 

action” and transferred to In re Ameriquest Mortgage Company Lending Practices Litigation, 

Case No. 1:05-CV-07097 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. 

Case 2:04-cv-01855-KJM-EFB Document 39 Filed 06/14/06 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

27

28 

2 

ORDER – CASE NO. S-04-1855 FCD 

28 U.S.C. § 1407. Said stay of the proceedings is in the interests of judicial economy and in an 

effort to avoid inconsistent rulings and vexation of the parties. 

2. All pretrial and trial dates are suspended pending the Panel’s final determination. 

DATED: June 13, 2006 /s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr . 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:04-cv-01855-KJM-EFB Document 39 Filed 06/14/06 Page 2 of 2
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Cano Petroleum, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSBfor the quarter ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael J. Ricketts,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge, pursuant to 18U.S.C. section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)  The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)  The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company, as of, and for,the periods presented in the Report.

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Companyand will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

The foregoing certificationis being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-QSB pursuant to Item601(b)(32) of Regulation S-B and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of202 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 ofTitle 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part ofthe Form 10-QSB for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filingof the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of anygeneral incorporation language in such filing.

 

 
| May 15, 2006 | /s/ Michael J. Ricketts |   |
|-------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|              | Michael J. Ricketts     |
|              | Chief Financial Officer |

 

34

----
### NUMBER 13

- 14

- 00 031

- CR


## COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

AARON ANTHONY TORRES , Appellant,

v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 19 th District Court of McLennan County, Texas.



## ORDER TO FILE APPELLATE BRIEF

Before Justices Rodriguez , Benavides, and Perkes

Order Per Curiam

Th is appeal was transferred to this Court from the T enth Court of Appeals by order
of the Texas Supreme Court. See T EX

. G OV ' T C ODE A NN . § 22.220(a) ( West, Westlaw
through 2013 3d C.S. ) (delineating the jurisdiction of appellate courts); T EX

. G OV ' T C ODE

A NN . § 73.001 ( West, Westlaw through 2013 3d C.S. ) (granting the supreme court the2

authority to transfer cases from one court of appeals to a nother at any time that there is
“good cause” for the transfer). This cause is currently before the Court on appellant's
second unopposed extension of time to file the brief. The reporter’s record was filed on
June 5, 2014, and a ppellant ’ s brief was originally due to be filed thirty days thereafter.

See Tex. R. App. P. 38.6(a). T his Court has previously granted appellant one extension
of time totaling ninety days to file the brief, and appellant now seeks an additional sixty
days, until December 5, 2014, to file the brief.

The Co urt GRANTS appellant’s second unopposed motion to file the brief and

ORDERS the Honorable Denton B. Lessman to file the brief on or before December 5,

2014. The Court looks with disfavor on the delay caused by counsel’s failure to timely
file a brief in this matter. No further extensions will be granted absent exigent

circumstances. If counsel fails to file the brief within the specified period of time, the
Court will act appropriately to ensure that appellant 's rights are protected. See id. R.
38.8(b)(4).

PER CURIAM
Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the 21 st day of October
, 2014

.
(Reap. Dec. 10132)

#### Frank P. Dow Co., a/c The Newman Co. et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. DE-53734, etc.

(Decided December 26, 1961)

*Lawrence & Tuttle (Edward N. Glad*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

*William H. Orriclc, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General *(Morris Braverman,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

Johnson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement, consolidated at the trial, cover merchandise exported from Japan during 1959 and 1960. The appeals were abandoned as to all merchandise made by manufacturers other than Kohkoku Chemical Industry Co., Ltd., or Ozeki Rubber Industry Co., Ltd.

At the trial, counsel for the respective parties submitted these cases on a stipulation reading as follows:

> Me. Glad : * * *

> I offer to stipulate that the merchandise consisted of goods manufactured by Kohkoku Chemical Industry Co. Ltd., or Ozeki Rubber Industry Co. Ltd., exported from Japan during 1959 and 1960, and that the export value is the proper basis of appraisement, and that the unit invoiced values, net packed, represent such export value, and that there is no higher foreign value for such or similar merchandise.

> *********

> Me. Bbaverman : Erom information obtained from Examiner Piatt, at the port of Los Angeles, who is in court, the Government so stipulates.

All of the merchandise covered by these cases was imported subsequent to the effective date of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, 70 Stat. 943, and the final list issued pursuant thereto in 93 Treas. Dec. 14, T.D. 54521. Said merchandise consists of various rubber articles, described on the invoices as 2-man rubber boats, 4-man rubber boats, air mattresses, surf riders, rain wear, men’s vinyl shoes with rubber soles, and boys’ chemical rubber baseball shoes. Some of these articles appear to be included in the said final list, but others do not. The former are subject to appraisement under section 402a (d) of said Customs Simplification Act of 1956 and the latter under section 402(b) of said act. It has been stipulated, however, that export value is the proper basis of appraisement of all the articles involved herein and that there is no higher foreign value for any of them.

On the record presented, I find that export value, as that value is defined in section 402(b) or section 402a(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, *495as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, 70 Stat. 943, is the proper basis for the determination of the values of the articles of merchandise manufactured by Kohkoku Chemical Industry Co., Ltd., or Ozeki Rubber Industry Co., Ltd., involved herein, and that such values are the unit invoiced values, net, packed.

As to all other merchandise, the appeals, having been abandoned, are dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 50488.

#### Protest 94919-K of Strauss-Eckardt Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

At the trial the record in *Kempner*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 173, C. D. 820) was incorporated herein. There, similar shaving sets were held properly dutiable at 40 percent under paragraph 339 rather than at 50 percent under paragraph 230 (b) as mirrors. Although no samples from the present importation were retained, the exhibits in the incorporated case were in evidence. Plaintiff’s witness testified that the sets in question were similar to those in the incorporated case, the only difference being that some of the sets in the instant importation have upright stands whereas the merchandise in the incorporated case had folding stands. From an examination of the entire record the court was satisfied that the cited decision is controlling, particularly since it was not disputed that the instant sets are entireties. Following that authority, it was held that the involved sets are properly dutiable as claimed.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 50 (Thursday, March 15, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 12186]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4689]



[[Page 12186]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[WY-923-1310-FI; WYW155744]


Wyoming: Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and 
Gas Lease

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of proposed reinstatement of terminated oil and gas 
lease.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of 30 U.S.C. 188(d) and (e), and 43 CFR 
3108.2-3(a) and (b)(1), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received a 
petition for reinstatement from Missouri Basin Well Service Inc. for 
competitive oil and gas lease WYW155744 for land in Sheridan County, 
Wyoming. The petition was filed on time and was accompanied by all the 
rentals due since the date the lease terminated under the law.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bureau of Land Management, Pamela J. 
Lewis, Chief, Branch of Fluid Minerals Adjudication, at (307) 775-6176.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The lessee has agreed to the amended lease 
terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $10.00 per acre or fraction 
thereof, per year and 16\2/3\ percent, respectively. The lessee has 
paid the required $500 administrative fee and $163.00 to reimburse the 
Department for the cost of this Federal Register notice. The lessee has 
met all the requirements for reinstatement of the lease as set out in 
Sections 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920 (30 
U.S.C. 188), and the Bureau of Land Management is proposing to 
reinstate lease WYW155744 effective December 1, 2006, under the 
original terms and conditions of the lease and the increased rental and 
royalty rates cited above. BLM has not issued a valid lease affecting 
the lands.

Pamela J. Lewis,
Chief, Branch of Fluid Minerals Adjudication.
 [FR Doc. E7-4689 Filed 3-14-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-22-P
EXHIBIT
31.2




I,
Lawrence Schaffer, certify that:




I have
reviewed this Annual report on Form 10-K of Case Financial, Inc;




Based on
my knowledge, this annual 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;




Based on
my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this Annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this Annual report;




The
registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant 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 company, 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 company'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 company's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
company's internal control over financial reporting;




The
registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant'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 registrant'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 registrant's internal control over financial
reporting.









/s/
      Lawrence SchafferLawrence
      Schaffer
              Chief
      Financial Officer
              January
      13, 2010








---
#### Michael Ryan, Plaintiff, v Dennis Ratchuk, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent. Lorraine Stegura, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent-Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[635 NYS2d 554]

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Same Memorandum as in *Ryan v Ratchuk*(221 AD2d 1021 [decided herewith]). (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Rath, Jr., J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Green, J. P., Lawton, Fallon, Doerr and Balio, JJ.