alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

September 4, 2012

h0827

Order 

September 4, 2012

145112

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 145112

COA: 308489

Monroe CC: 10-038667-FH

SCOTT L. BORKOWSKI,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 22, 2012 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

 EASTERN DIVISION

United States of America 

-vsMark A. Corby

________________________________ 

Case No. 2:13-cr-041 (1) 

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

 CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY 

The Defendant, by consent, has appeared before me pursuant to Rule 

11, F.R.Cr.P. and has entered a plea of guilty to Count one (1) of the 

Information. After examining the Defendant under oath concerning each of 

the subjects mentioned in Rule 11, I determine that the defendant is 

competent and capable of entering an informed plea, that the guilty plea 

is knowingly and voluntary made and that the offenses charged are supported 

by an independent basis in fact containing each of the essential elements 

of such offense. 

The plea agreement contains an agreed sentence and it is up to the 

District Judge to determine if the sentence is appropriate. If the 

District Judge does so determine, I RECOMMEND the plea agreement and the 

plea of guilty should be accepted and the Defendant should be adjudged 

guilty and sentenced accordingly. Otherwise, the plea agreement should 

be rejected and the defendant should be allowed to withdraw the guilty plea. 

The Defendant remains on bond pending sentencing. 

Date: April 11, 2013 /s/ Terence P. Kemp 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

NOTICE

Failure to file written objections to this Report and Recommendation 

within fourteen (14) days from the date of its service shall bar an aggrieved 

party from attacking such Report and Recommendation before the assigned 

United States District Judge. 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(B). 

Case: 2:13-cr-00041-PCE-TPK Doc #: 14 Filed: 04/11/13 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
EXHIBIT 32.1








CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, John C. Lawrence, President, and Chief Executive Officer of United States Antimony Corporation (the "Company") do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:





This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








Date: May 14, 2010
By:
/s/ John C. LawrenceJohn C. LawrencePresident and Chief Executive Officer
#### Fondeville & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States

No. 7556.

Entry No. 736530, etc.

Invoices dated Stoke on Trent, England, May 1945, etc.

Certified May 1945, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., June 18, 1945, etc.

(Decided February 27, 1948)

*Fred Bennett*for the plaintiffs.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Johnson, Judge:

This proceeding has been -submitted upon a stipulation wherein the parties hereto have agreed that the issues involved in the reappraise-ments listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, are the same in all material respects as in the case of *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. 183, C. A. D. 334. The record in that case was admitted as part of the record herein.

*393In view of the aforesaid stipulation and accepting same as a statement of fact, and in view of the decision cited, I find and hold that the export values of the merchandise are the values found by the appraiser, less any additions on entry by the importers by reason of advances by the appraiser in similar cases to equal ■the so-called British purchase tax.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
From: "Wennerberg, Linda S. (HQ-LA000)" 

To: IRISInterAgency, "flower.Lynnn" 

Cc: "Leatherwood, James (HQ-LD020)" 

Date: 05/17/2010 03:53 PM 

Subject: RE: NCEA Interagency Communication #68 (draft revised charge for dioxin SAB review) 

Dear Lyn Flowers, and the NCEA Teams; 

NASA thanks EPA for its provision of an updated set of charge questions for 

the draft Dioxin risk assessment serving as the draft response to the NAS 

review. We appreciate EPA's consideration of the significant amount of 

interagency input to expand the initial draft charge questions to include 

specific scientific and technical issues. The interagency input, also 

documented in the individual agency submissions for the public record, 

highlighted EPA's use of new and alternative approaches and the need for peer 

review of these shifts in established methodologies and interpretation of 

technical guidance. For example, NASA suggested targeted peer review of EPA's 

approaches undertaken in this draft as to ensure support for sound scientific 

innovation and transparency, especially related to new or innovative 

evaluation methods and interpretation of established EPA guidance proposed by 

EPA in the draft. Such questions have been raised in EPA's charge questions 

for other single chemical risk assessments and are most appropriate for the 

draft Dioxin risk assessment. 

Upon review of EPA's updated charge questions for the Dioxin review, we 

encourage EPA to incorporate the clear, detailed suggested expansion of the 

initial draft charge questions, provided by DoD to EPA and the larger 

interagency review group on April 13, 2010. EPA's updated draft charge 

questions do not address significant scientific and technical issues 

identified during the interagency review process. The DoD response to the 

initial EPA charge questions best captures many of the outstanding issues and 

agencies' request for peer review of EPA's new approaches. The DoD proposed 

language addresses many of the issue raised by NASA and other agencies with 

specific expansions of the proposed draft charge questions. We suggest 

integration of the key DoD issues and charge question language to support 

EPA's commitment to both scientific integrity and timely release of the draft 

to the public and the peer reviewers for comment. As part of the interagency 

review process, the DoD comments will be publicly available and again, 

integration of the detailed expansion of the charge questions does much 

address remaining interagency scientific and technical concerns. 

NASA, upon review of EPA's updated charge question draft, identifies 

outstanding issues that remain inadequately addressed and requests EPA 

incorporate specific DoD language to strengthen the peer review process for 

the draft Dioxin risk assessment. 

NASA again thanks EPA for the opportunity to review and comment, especially 

EPA's effort to address identified scientific and technical concerns through 

strengthened charge questions. 

Linda Wennerberg
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-61,233] 

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on April 3, 2007 in response to a petition filed on behalf of workers of Sara Lee, also known as Hanesbrands, Rockingham, North Carolina. 

The petitioning group of workers is covered by a duplicate petition (TA-W-61,117) instituted on March 15, 2007 that is the subject of an ongoing investigation for which a determination has not yet been issued. Further investigation in this case would duplicate efforts; therefore the investigation under this petition has been terminated. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 19th day of April, 2007. 

Richard Church, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

 [FR Doc. E7-7968 Filed 4-25-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
Before the Third Division,

April 18, 1950

No. 54250.

#### The Frank Tea and Spice Co. *v.*United States,

protest 154439-K (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of laurel leaves similar to those the subject of *The Levy & Levis Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(23 Cust. Ct. 8, C. D. 1180), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **CMBS Department**

 

MAC N9401-011

1055 10th Avenue SE

Minneapolis, MN 55414 |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Citibank, National Association

388 Greenwich Street

14th Floor

New York, New York 10013

 

  

RE: Annual Statement ofCompliance for Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc., CommercialMortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2016-GC36

 

Per the Pooling and ServicingAgreement dated as of February 1, 2016 (the "Agreement"), theundersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Custodian("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the yearending December 31, 2016 (the "Reporting Period"):

 

(a)         A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the Reporting Period and of itsperformance under the Agreement has been made under such officer's supervision;and

(b)         To the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo hasfulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respectsthroughout the Reporting Period.

 

  

March 1, 2017

 

/s/ Gail Vannest

GAIL VANNEST

Vice President

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. |   |
|------------------------|--------|
# C_2015213EN.01002301.xml

| 29.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/23

---

Order of the President of the Court of 10 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Essen — Germany) — Staatsanwaltschaft Essen v Kanapathippilai Kanageswaran

(Case C-7/15) (1)

1

(2015/C 213/42)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 127, 20.4.2015.

1

---
# Official Journal L 111/2022

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 111 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 658 April 2022 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 111

English edition

Legislation

Volume 658 April 2022

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Council Regulation (EU) 2022/576 of 8 April 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine | 1 |
| | * | Council Regulation (EU) 2022/577 of 8 April 2022 amending Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine | 67 |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/578 of 8 April 2022 amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine | 70 |
| | * | Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/579 of 8 April 2022 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine | 81 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Council Regulation (EU) 2022/576 of 8 April 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine

1

*

Council Regulation (EU) 2022/577 of 8 April 2022 amending Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine

67

DECISIONS

*

Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/578 of 8 April 2022 amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine

70

*

Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/579 of 8 April 2022 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine

81

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
No. 40355.

#### Protests 374206-G, etc., of Ovington Bros. Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel atomizers, lamps, boxes, and thimbles chiefly used in the household for utilitarian purposes were held dutiable at 40 percent under paragraph 339. *United States*v. *Friedlaender (*21 C. C. P. A. 103, T. D. 46445), *Dow*v. *United States*(id. 282, T. D. 46816), and *Rice*v. *United States*(T. D. 49373) cited.
No. 62020.

#### Manca, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 300210-K (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of wooden containers, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
May 18, 1949

No. 53168.

Suit 4596.

#### Julius Wile Sons & Co., Inc. *v.*United States.

C. *D.*1089 affirmed March 1, 1949. C. A. D. 404.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

United States of America

v. Case No. 2:12-cr-94

Dennis Antonio Juarez Reyes

aka Victor Colon Rosario

ORDER

Defendant entered a guilty plea to Count 1 of the indictment

before the magistrate judge on June 1, 2012. The court has since

been advised that the transferor district neglected to forward a

superseding indictment which had been returned against the

defendant. The superseding indictment has now been filed. The

report and recommendation (Doc. 19) previously entered in this case

by the magistrate judge has been withdrawn. The magistrate judge

is now recommending that the defendant be permitted to withdraw his

guilty plea to Count 1 of the indictment, and that the matter be

scheduled for a plea hearing to permit him to enter a guilty plea

to Count 1 of the superseding indictment. The court hereby adopts

this report and recommendation (Doc. 21). Defendant is granted

leave to withdraw his guilty plea to Count 1 of the indictment. 

Defendant’s arraignment on Count 1 of the superseding indictment

will be scheduled before the magistrate judge.

Date: June 14, 2012 s/James L. Graham 

 James L. Graham

 United States District Judge

Case: 2:12-cr-00094-JLG-NMK Doc #: 22 Filed: 06/14/12 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
## RULE 2:9- Conditional **Appr~val.** 

## a. The 

## Air Pollution Control Officer

## may issue an Authority to Construct or a

## PenAit to Operate, **~uLject** 

## to conditions which will 

## bring tile operation ofany **articl~.** 

## machine. equipment or othercontriv?-nce 

## within thE! **st~n<.l~rds** 

## of Rule 2:e 

## in 'IIllich 

## case 

## the conditions so specified. :heAir Pollution Contrcl Officer shall issue an Authority to Construct or a Permit to Operate with revised conditions upon receiptof anew application, if the applicant demonstrates that the article, Machine, equiprr.ent or other contrivance can operatewithin



### t~e standards ofRule 2:8 under the revised conditions.
Case: 2:12-cv-01193-EAS-EPD Doc #: 57 Filed: 11/15/13 Page: 1 of 1  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-11T15:51:43-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
July 15, 2015

Mr. James Duisenberg

James Duisenberg d/b/a Tap Productions

495 Tabor Drive Unit #3

Scotts Valley, CA 95066

Dear Mr. Duisenberg:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. Upon 

further review we have noticed you are missing the public interest statement. It explains why 

we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your June 30, 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-

1892), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does

not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request 

any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
3
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsHighly automated optical characterization with FTIR spectrometryThe procedure for evaluating the characteristics of II-VI semiconducting infrared sensor materials with a Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) spectrometer system will be discussed. While the method of mapping optical characteristics with a spectrometer has been employed previously, this system is highly automated compared to other systems where the optical transmission data are obtained using a FTIR system with a small stationary aperture in the optical path and moving the specimen behind the aperture. The hardware and software, including an algorithm developed for extracting cut-on wavelengths of spectra, as well as several example results, are described to illustrate the advanced level of the system. Additionally, data from transverse slices and longitudinal wafers of the aforementioned semiconductors will be used to show the accuracy of the system in predicting trends in materials such as shapes of growth interfaces and compositional uniformity.Document ID19890020141Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsPerry, G. L. E.*(NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Huntsville, AL, United States)*Szofran, F. R.*(NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Huntsville, AL, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateSeptember 1, 1989Subject CategoryInorganic And Physical ChemistryReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:100379NASA-TM-100379Accession Number89N29512Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19890020141.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
No. 41967.

#### Protest 304482-G of R. H. Macy & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

From the record it was found hat certain items consist of Normandy laces similar to those involved in *Amrein*v. *United States*(T. D. 49551). As to these the claim at 75 percent under paragraph 1430 was sustained.. Articles in chief value of cellulose filaments similar to those involved in Abstract 37230 were held dutiable at 60 percent under paragraph 31 as claimed.