alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 49214.

#### Protest 103487-K of Old Dutch Mustard Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In view of the report of the collector admitted in evidence, the court directed the collector to reliquidate the entry and make refund in accordance therewith.
ex_101.htm


Exhibit 10.1












Amendment No. 1


Dated March 12, 2015 To


EXHIBIT “B”


To that Employment Agreement


Dated October 15, 2014


Between Yuma Energy, Inc.


and


Paul McKinney




Restricted Stock Terms and Conditions


 


The terms and conditions of the grant of restricted stock will be as follows: $525,000 of Restricted Stock (“Grant 1”) will be granted in a Restricted Stock Agreement pursuant to the Stock Plan during the next compensation committee meeting, which is expected to occur on or around March 2015.  The valuation will be based upon the closing price of Yuma common stock on October 10, 2014.  Grant 1 will vest in three equal installments on October 15, 2015, October 15, 2016 and October 15, 2017.
No. 52637.

protests 955097-G (B), etc. (Los Angeles and San Francisco).

#### Bekins Van & Storage Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 52297.

protests 129958-K, etc. (Philadelphia, etc.).

#### Walter Hart, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cole, J.

The protests were dismissed.
# C_2008112EN.01004201.xml

| 7.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/42

---

Corrigendum to information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1628/2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to national regional investment aid

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 169 of 21 July 2007
  )

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 169 of 21 July 2007

(2008/C 112/22)

On page 19, Aid No ‘XR 32/07’ is replaced with the following:

| ‘Aid No | XR 32/07 |
| --- | --- |
| Member State | Czech Republic |
| Region | 87(3)(a), 87(3)(c) |
| Title of aid scheme or the name of the undertaking receiving ad hoc aid supplement | Investment incentives |
| Legal basis | Act No. 72/2000 Coll., on Investment Incentives, as amended by the act 159/2007 Coll.
  Act No. 586/1992 Coll., on Income Taxes, as amended
  Government Decree No. 596/2006, on the permissible level of state aid
  Act No. 435/2004 Coll., on Employment, as amended
  Government Decree No. 515/2004 Coll., on financial support for job creation and financial support for retraining or training within the framework of investment incentives, as amended |
| Type of measure | Aid scheme |
| Annual budget | CZK 2 million |
| Maximum aid intensity | 40 % |
| In conformity with Article 4 of the Regulation |
| Date of implementation | 2.7.2007 |
| Duration | 31.12.2013 |
| Economic sectors | Limited to specific sectors |
| D |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Ministerstvo průmyslu a obchodu |
| Na Františku 32 |
| CZ-11015 Praha 1 |

‘Aid No

XR 32/07

Member State

Czech Republic

Region

87(3)(a), 87(3)(c)

Title of aid scheme or the name of the undertaking receiving ad hoc aid supplement

Investment incentives

Legal basis

Act No. 72/2000 Coll., on Investment Incentives, as amended by the act 159/2007 Coll.

Act No. 586/1992 Coll., on Income Taxes, as amended

Government Decree No. 596/2006, on the permissible level of state aid

Act No. 435/2004 Coll., on Employment, as amended

Government Decree No. 515/2004 Coll., on financial support for job creation and financial support for retraining or training within the framework of investment incentives, as amended

Type of measure

Aid scheme

Annual budget

CZK 2 million

Maximum aid intensity

40 %

In conformity with Article 4 of the Regulation

Date of implementation

2.7.2007

Duration

31.12.2013

Economic sectors

Limited to specific sectors

D

Name and address of the granting authority

Ministerstvo průmyslu a obchodu

Na Františku 32

CZ-11015 Praha 1

Internet address of the publication of the aid scheme

http://www.mpo.cz/cz/podpora-podnikani/investovani/

Other information

—’

---
Before the Second Division,

May 14, 1948

No. 52328.

protests 841628-G, etc. (New York).

#### R. E. Miller, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protests were dismissed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6000
JUAN GALLA, Petitioner - Appellant, v. STATE OF MARYLAND; SHEILAH DAVENPORT, CEO, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:07-cv-02758-AW) Submitted: March 27, 2008 Decided: April 4, 2008 Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Juan Galla, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Juan Galla, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition and denying reconsideration. The order are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Galla has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
## In T he Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 22 - 00309 - CV IN THE INTEREST OF J.R.H. AND A.R.H. , CHILDREN On Appeal from the 362nd District Court Denton County, Texas Trial Court No . 15 - 08449 - 211 , Honorable Robert Bruce McFarling , Presiding



### November 21 , 2022 ORDER OF ABATEMENT AND REMAND Before QUINN, C.J., and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ. Appellant, Rodolfo G. Rosa, proceeding pro se, appeals from the trial court’s Order of Dismissal
. 1 The clerk’s record has been filed. The reporter’s record was due October 11, 2022, but was not filed because Rosa purportedly failed to request and make payment arrangements for the record. On October 20 , 2022, Rosa filed a copy of a “Request for Court Records and Reporter’s Records for Appeal.” The document indicates that Rosa also filed a statement of inability to afford payment of court costs. The reporter has since

1 Originally appealed to the Second Court of Appeals, this appeal was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalizations efforts. See T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 73.001.2

notified the Court that she has yet to a receive a designation or payment for the r eporter’s record from Rosa. It is the appellant’s responsibility to request preparation and make payment arrangements for the reporter’s record. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 35.3(b). When an appellant fails to do so, we may consider and decide an appeal witho ut a reporter’s record, unless appellant is entitled to proceed without payment of costs. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 37.3(c). Here, we are unable to determine whether Rosa has requested preparation of the reporter’s record, made payment arrangements, or sought t o proceed without payment of costs. Accordingly, we abate th e appeal and remand t his cause to the trial court to determine (1) whether Rosa requested preparation of the reporter’s record; (2) if so, what portions of the reporter’s record were requested; (3) whether Rosa paid for the reporter’s record; and ( 4 ) if Rosa has not paid for the reporter’s record, whether he is entitled to proceed without payment of costs. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 35.3(c) (providing that t he trial and appellate court are jointly responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed ); T EX . R. C IV . P. 145 (concerning indigence and payment of costs). The trial court shall enter its findings in a written order a nd include the order in a supplemental clerk ’ s record which shall be filed with this Court by December 21 , 2022
. Per Curiam
C:\Users\tlk2\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Window s\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\JOXMQJYL\Agenda CCI BART Issues Meeting 08-09-06.doc 

### Taconite BART – CCI Indurating Furnaces Meeting Handouts: Template Report (without tables) Tables for Each Facility (HTC, NMC, UT) Info Packet on technologies: RSCR Low Temperature Oxidation (LoTox ® ) Water Injection Low NO x Burners 

### Issues New information supports a conclusion that RSCR, Low Temperature Oxidation, and Water Injection Low NOx Burners (LNB ) are not “available” technologies  MPCA will likely push back on availability  RSCR below $12,000/ton threshold for HTC Lines 1-3, Utac Line 1  RSCR at wood-fired utility boilers, pilot study on taconite plant in Sweden;  LoTox status  Inability to commit to an emission limit (BART = limit)  How to handle reversal with MPCA (ver bal heads up, written heads up, notify in report) Water Injection LNB  May be promising, advantageous  Next steps, responsibilities Public and Political Ramifications  Willing or not to reduce  Willing or not to study  Possible limits on future development  Public relations strategy Process Improvements with NOx CEMS or other Parametric Monitoring  Process improvements have already been made and are site specific  Fine tuning is at research stag e, similar to above technologies Economic Feasibility  $ per ton pollutant removed  BACT level is $8,000 -12,000 per ton  New development ≠ Retrofit o New development can choose not to proceed due to implications o Implications of retrofit –will this impact viability? Economic Feasibility ≠ AffordabilityC:\Users\tlk2\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Window s\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\JOXMQJYL\Agenda CCI BART Issues Meeting 08-09-06.doc Affordability  $900 per ton is affordable for power industry  Industry to consider doc umentation for plants Cost Confidentiality  Consider sensitivity to cost information in cost spreadsheets  Also consider sensitivity to confid entiality in affordability arguments Propose BART – Emission Limits and Compliance Monitoring  Existing Emissions vs More Reductions  NOx reductions – possibly solid fuel on kilns  SO2 reductions – possibly control solid fuel (improve existing scrubber, secondary wet scrubber, or WWESP  Continuous Compliance Demonstration (process or emissions monitoring)
# C_2007261EN.01005201.xml

| 31.10.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/52

---

European Police College (Bramshill) — Publication of the final accounts for the financial year 2006

(2007/C 261/17)

The complete version of the final accounts may be found at the following address:

http://www.cepol.europa.eu

Source: Data supplied by the College — This table summarises the data provided by the College in its annual accounts:

Source:

Table 1

Economic outturn account for the financial year 2006

| (1000 euro) |
| --- |
| | 2006 |
| Operating revenue |
| Community subsidies | 4 352 |
| Total (a) | 4 352 |
| Operating expenditure |
| Staff expenditure | 1 460 |
| Other administrative expenditure | 358 |
| Operational expenditure | 2 454 |
| Total (b) | 4 272 |
| Surplus/(deficit) from operating activities (c = a - b) | 80 |
| Financial operations revenues (e) | 0 |
| Financial operations expenditure (f) | 12 |
| Surplus/(deficit) from non-operating activities (g = e - f) | - 12 |
| Economic result for the year (h = c + g) | 68 |
| NB: These accounts are drawn up on a accrual basis. |

(1000 euro)

2006

Operating revenue

Community subsidies

4 352

Total (a)

Total (a)

4 352

4 352

Operating expenditure

Staff expenditure

1 460

Other administrative expenditure

358

Operational expenditure

2 454

Total (b)

Total (b)

4 272

4 272

Surplus/(deficit) from operating activities (c = a - b)

Surplus/(deficit) from operating activities (c = a - b)

80

80

Financial operations revenues (e)

0

Financial operations expenditure (f)

12

Surplus/(deficit) from non-operating activities (g = e - f)

Surplus/(deficit) from non-operating activities (g = e - f)

- 12

- 12

Economic result for the year (h = c + g)

Economic result for the year (h = c + g)

68

68

NB: These accounts are drawn up on a accrual basis.

NB:

Table 2

European Police College (Bramshill) — Balance Sheet at 31 December 2006

| (1000 euro) |
| --- |
| | 2006 |
| Non-current assets |
| Tangible fixed assets | 37 |
| Current assets |
| Short-term receivables | 298 |
| Cash and cash equivalents | 3 682 |
| Total assets | 4 017 |
| Accounts payable | 3 949 |
| Total liabilities | 3 949 |
| Net assets |
| Economic result for the year | 68 |
| Total net assets | 68 |
| Total liabilities and net assets | 4 017 |
| NB: These accounts are drawn up on a accrual basis. |

(1000 euro)

2006

Non-current assets

Tangible fixed assets

37

Current assets

Short-term receivables

298

Cash and cash equivalents

3 682

Total assets

Total assets

4 017

4 017

Accounts payable

3 949

Total liabilities

Total liabilities

3 949

3 949

Net assets

Economic result for the year

68

Total net assets

Total net assets

68

68

Total liabilities and net assets

Total liabilities and net assets

4 017

4 017

NB: These accounts are drawn up on a accrual basis.

NB:

---
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

RICHARD TICKTIN
, Appellant,

v.

GUARDIANSHIP OF STEVEN HOWARD TICKTIN
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 22

- 1129

[ November 30, 2022 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Charles M. Greene , Judge; L.T. Case No. 20

- 3090 MHC

.

Peter Ticktin and Michael J. McCormick, Jr. of The Ticktin Law Group, Deerfield Beach, for appellant.

Alexandra V. Ri eman of GAPS Legal, PLLC, Sunrise, for appellee Steven

Howard Ticktin.

Barry S. Franklin of Barry S. Franklin & Associates, P.A., Aventura, for appellee Kim Goldmintz, a/k/a Kim Hope Goldmintz.

P ER C URIAM

.

Richard Ticktin appeals the summary judgme nt which denied Ticktin’s motion to discharge his former wife as guardian advocate for their adult son. We affirm. As acknowledged by the appellees during oral argument, our ruling does not preclude the lower court from considering Ticktin’s

motion for i nterim judicial review, where he raised issues related to timesharing with his son.

Ticktin also appeals the lower court’s ruling on the appellees’ entitlement to attorney’s fees. We dismiss that portion of the appeal. See

Schmidt v. Schmidt , 319 So. 3d 65, 65 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (“An order merely finding entitlement to attorney’s fees is a non

- final, non

- appealable order.”).

Affirmed in part, dismissed in part

.2 C IKLIN
, L EVINE and K UNTZ

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
================================================================================

EXHIBIT 32.2   PATIENT PORTAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.


     Certification of Principal Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)



I, Thomas Hagan, Acting Chief Financial Officer of Patient Portal Technologies,
Inc. (the "Registrant"), certify that to the best of my knowledge, based upon a
review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended Sept 30, 2007
of the Registrant (the "Report"):

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
         13(a)[15(d)] of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

         (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         the Registrant.


Dated:  11/14/07             /s/ THOMAS HAGAN
                             -----------------------
                             Thomas Hagan
                             Chief Financial Officer








--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# C_2007190EN.01000801.xml

| 15.8.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/8

---

Notice of the expiry of certain anti-dumping measures

(2007/C 190/05)

Further to the publication of a notice of impending expiry (1), following which no request for a review was received, the Commission gives notice that the anti-dumping measures mentioned below will shortly expire.

1

This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 (2) on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community.

2

| Product | Country(ies) of origin or exportation | Measures | Reference | Date of expiry |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Tube and pipe fittings, of iron or steel | Russia | Anti-dumping duty | Council Regulation (EC) No 1514/2002 (OJ L 228, 24.8.2002, p. 1) as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 778/2003 (OJ L 114, 8.5.2003, p. 1) | 25.8.2007 |

Product

Country(ies) of origin or exportation

Measures

Reference

Date of expiry

Tube and pipe fittings, of iron or steel

Russia

Anti-dumping duty

Council Regulation (EC) No 1514/2002 (OJ L 228, 24.8.2002, p. 1) as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 778/2003 (OJ L 114, 8.5.2003, p. 1)

25.8.2007

---

(1)  OJ C 286, 23.11.2006, p. 8.

1

(2)  OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2117/2005 (OJ L 340, 23.12.2005, p. 17).

2

---
# EUR-Lex - 52007AP0042 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52007AP0042

**European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the exercise of voting rights by shareholders of companies having their registered office in a Member State and whose shares are admitted to trading on a regulated market and amending Directive 2004/109/EC (COM(2005)0685 - C6-0003/2006 - 2005/0265(COD)) **

*
Official Journal 287 E , 29/11/2007 P. 0486 - 0486 *

P6_TA(2007)0042

Shareholders' voting rights ***I

European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the exercise of voting rights by shareholders of companies having their registered office in a Member State and whose shares are admitted to trading on a regulated market and amending Directive 2004/109/EC (COM(2005)0685 — C6-0003/2006 — 2005/0265(COD))

(Codecision procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2005)0685) [1],

- having regard to Article 251(2) and Articles 44 and 95 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0003/2006),

- having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A6-0024/2007),

1. Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

2. Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend the proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

3. Asks the Commission to consult Parliament before finalising a Recommendation related to issues and topics in the context of the proposed Directive;

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

[1] Not yet published in OJ.

--------------------------------------------------
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 17, 2020

No. 04

- 19

- 00437

- CV

CITY OF HELOTES

, Appellant

v.

Jean Marie PAGE

, Appellee

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CI01629

Honorable Karen H. Pozza, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Sitting: Patri cia O. A l varez, Justice

Ir ene Rios, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

The panel has considered the appellant ’ s motion for rehe aring, and the motion is hereb y

DENIED.

______ ___________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 17th day of January, 2020

.

___________________________________ M ichael A. C ruz

, Clerk of Court
No. 61396.

protests 288278-K, etc. (New York).

#### Bloomingdale Bros. (A Div. of Fed. Dept. Stores, Inc.) et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of figures the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.*v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 15, C. A. D. 458), the merchandise was held dutiable as follows: (1) The items marked with the letter “A” at 20 percent under paragraph 1547 (a); and (2) the items marked with the letter “B” at 10 percent under said paragraph, as modified by the Annecy Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T. D. 52373), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T. D. 52476).
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Annual Report of IceWEB, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K
for the year ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the “Report”), I, John R. Signorello, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350, as adopted pursuant to SS. 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 result of operations of the Company.


December
      29, 2009
            /s/ John R. SignorelloJohn
      R. Signorello, Chief Executive Officer and
              principal
      executive officer





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version 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.