alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSIONWASHINGTON, D.C. 20549FORM 10-QSB

(Mark One)

þ QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the quarterly period ended    September 30, 2007

 ̈ TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIESEXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from      _______  to  ______



UNITED-GUARDIAN, INC.(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)

Delaware                                                                                                                                           11-1719724(State or Other Jurisdiction of                                                                                                            (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)Incorporation or Organization)

230 Marcus Boulevard, Hauppauge, New York 11788(Address of Principal Executive Offices)

(631) 273-0900(Registrants Telephone Number)

N/A(Former name, former address and former fiscal year, if changed since last report)



Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act during the past 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes   þ          No   ̈

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.)

Yes    ̈          No  þ

****



Cover Page 1 of 2

---

APPLICABLE ONLY TO ISSUERS INVOLVED IN BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS 
DURING THE PRECEDING FIVE YEARS

Check whether the registrant filed all documents and reports required to be filed by Section 12, 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act after the distribution of securities under a plan confirmed by a court. Yes   ̈  No   ̈

****

APPLICABLE ONLY TO CORPORATE ISSUERS

State the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer's classes of common equity, as of the latest practicable date:

4,946,439 shares of common stock,par value $.10 per share, (as of November 1, 2007)

Transitional Small Business Disclosure Format (Check one):                                               Yes    ̈        No þ

****

****

****



|Cover Page 2 of 2
|-----------------

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

JAMES O. MORRIS, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. Civil Action 2:12-cv-595 

 Judge Sargus 

 Magistrate Judge King 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 

 Defendant. 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

 

 The parties have stipulated to an award of fees under the Equal 

Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, in the amount of $4,750.00. 

Doc. No. 24. 

It is therefore RECOMMENDED that plaintiff be awarded an attorney 

fee in the total amount of $4,750.00 under the Equal Access to Justice 

Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412. If counsel for the parties verify that 

plaintiff owes no pre-existing debts to the United States that are 

subject to offset, defendant will direct that the award be made 

payable to plaintiff’s attorney pursuant to the attorney’s fee 

assignment executed by plaintiff and his counsel. 

 If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report 

and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen (14) days, file 

and serve on all parties objections to the Report and Recommendation,

specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part 

thereof in question, as well as the basis for objection thereto. 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Response to objections 

Case: 2:12-cv-00595-EAS-NMK Doc #: 25 Filed: 08/23/13 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2 

must be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy 

thereof. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 

 The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to 

the Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to 

de novo review by the District Judge and of the right to appeal the 

decision of the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. 

See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of 

Teachers, Local 231 etc., 829 F.2d 1370 (6th Cir. 1987); United States 

v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). 

 s/Norah McCann King 

 Norah McCann King 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

August 23, 2013

Case: 2:12-cv-00595-EAS-NMK Doc #: 25 Filed: 08/23/13 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7779

DERICK DEVON MARTIN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-98-18-2) Submitted: March 11, 1999 Decided: March 16, 1999 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Derick Devon Martin, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Derick Devon Martin seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). Martin’s case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Martin that failureto file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Martin failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Martin has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. We accordingly 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
Searched for **http://www.nwcouncil.org/fw/isab/isab99-4/**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **http://www.nwcouncil.org/fw/isab/isab99-4/**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
# C_2017112EN.01000401.xml

| 10.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 February 2017 — Hansen & Rosenthal KG, H&R Wax Company Vertrieb GmbH v European Commission

(Case C-90/15 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for paraffin wax and the German market for slack wax - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Evidence of the infringement - Unlimited jurisdiction - Distortion of evidence - Obligation to state reasons - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 23(2) - Calculation of the amount of the fine - Principle of legality - The 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Principle of proportionality))

(2017/C 112/05)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellants: Hansen & Rosenthal KG, H&R Wax Company Vertrieb GmbH (represented by: J. Schulte, M. Dallmann and K. Künstner, lawyers)

Appellants:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: R. Sauer, C. Vollrath and L. Wildpanner, acting as Agents, and by A. Böhlke, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dimsisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dimsisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Hansen & Rosenthal KG and H&R Wax Company Vertrieb GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Hansen & Rosenthal KG and H&R Wax Company Vertrieb GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 146, 4.5.2015.

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 13 (Monday, January 22, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 2693]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-821]


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

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION


Revised Jurisdictional Thresholds for Section 8 of the Clayton 
Act

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission announces the revised thresholds 
for interlocking directorates required by the 1990 amendment of Section 
8 of the Clayton Act. Section 8 prohibits, with certain exceptions, one 
person from serving as a director or officer of two competing 
corporations if two thresholds are met. Competitor corporations are 
covered by Section 8 if each one has capital, surplus, and undivided 
profits aggregating more than $10,000,000, with the exception that no 
corporation is covered if the competitive sales of either corporation 
are less than $1,000,000. Section 8(a)(5) requires the Federal Trade 
Commission to revise those thresholds annually, based on the change in 
gross national product. The new thresholds, which take effect 
immediately, are $24,001,000 for Section 8(a)(1), and $2,400,100 for 
Section 8(a)(2)(A).

DATES: Effective Date: January 22, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James F. Mongoven, Bureau of 
Competition, Office of Policy and Coordination, (202) 326-2879.

(Authority: 15 U.S.C. 19(a)(5)).

    By direction of the Commission.
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-821 Filed 1-19-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-12-00403-CR

IN RE TREVER ROBERTSON

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Trever Robertson has filed what he titled “Motion for Leave to file Petition for 

Writ of Mandamus” although portions of his document could also be a Petition for Writ 

of Mandamus. A motion for leave to file a petition for writ of mandamus is required 

when relief is sought from the Court of Criminal Appeals. TEX. R. APP. P. 72.1. But the 

requirement for leave to file at the court of appeals level was eliminated in 1997. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 52, Notes and Comments. Thus, under the applicable rules, if mandamus 

relief is sought from an intermediate court of appeals, such as the Tenth Court of 

Appeals, a motion for leave to file the petition is unnecessary. Accordingly, Robertson’s 

motion for leave is dismissed as moot.
In re Robertson Page 2

As a Petition for Writ of Mandamus, there is simply inadequate information 

supplied to even begin to address the legal merits of it. It appears, based upon the 

punishment referenced in the motion, Robertson’s complaint relates to a motion for 

new trial from the judgment in trial court number 02-089-CR which was the subject of 

an appeal docketed in this Court and disposed of as 10-02-00283-CR. But Robertson 

does not supply any necessary information, such as the date the sentence was imposed, 

that would help us determine whether he is entitled to any relief. He simply asserts 

that he filed a motion for new trial on September 6, 2012 that has not been ruled upon 

by the trial court. We note that if a timely filed motion for new trial, and from what is 

before us this motion for new trial does not appear to be timely filed, is not ruled on by 

the trial court, the motion is deemed denied 75 days after the sentence is imposed. TEX.

R. APP. P. 21.8. That deemed denial, just like a written trial court order denying the 

motion for new trial, could then be appealed, but only if the motion for new trial was 

timely filed (within 30 days after the sentence is imposed). TEX. R. APP. P. 21.4(a); 

26.2(a)(2). Thus, Robertson would have had an adequate legal remedy by appeal that 

he appears to have lost by his delay in the filing of the motion for new trial. It therefore 

appears that the trial court has no jurisdiction to rule on the untimely filed motion for 

new trial. See Drew v. State, 743 S.W.2d 207, 223 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). Accordingly, to 

the extent that the document Robertson has filed is a Petition for Writ of Mandamus to 
In re Robertson Page 3

compel the trial court to do that which the trial court has no jurisdiction to do, it is 

denied.

There are other procedural problems with Robertson’s document including, but 

not limited to, that it was not served on the trial court judge. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.2; 9.5. 

However, we use Rule 2 to look beyond the procedural problems and reach a more 

timely disposition. TEX. R. APP. P. 2.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Motion dismissed as moot

Petition denied

Opinion delivered and filed November 15, 2012

Do not publish 

[OT06]
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MARCH 19, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 15 06 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 7- 00 50 1- CV-OC-1 0- GRJ
CHICK-F IL-A, INC., Pl ai nt iff - Co un te r Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us CFT DEVELOPMENT, L LC, PANDA RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., PANDA EXPRESS, INC., Defen da nt s- Co un te r Cl ai m an ts -Ap pe ll an ts .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Ma rch 19 , 20 10 ) BEFORE TJOFLAT, W ILSON an d HILL, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Thi s i s an ap pe al fro m th e g ran t b y

th e d is tri ctco ur t o f a d ecl arat ory jud gm en t an d p erm an en t i nju nc ti on in fav orof C hi ck -fi l-A, In c. (Ch ic k- fil -A) ag ai ns t CF T Deve lo pm en ts , LLC, Pand a Res taur an t Gro up , Inc . andPan da Exp res s, In c. (co ll ect iv el y , Pan daExp res s) . After d is co ve ry an d afou r-d ay

be nc h tri al , th e d is tri ctco urt en fo rceda va li d re st ric ti ve co ve na ntpre cl ud in g P an da Exp res s fr om

co ns tru ct in g, l eas in g o r op erat in g ares taur an t o n p ro pe rty adjoi ni ng Ch ic k- fil -A in Mo un t Do ra, Fl or id a. It p erm an en tl y en joi ne d P an daExp res s fr om op erat in g ares taur an t o n tha t p ro pe rty. W e h av e th or ou gh ly revi ewedth e rec or d i n thi s ca se , th e b rie fs , th e arg um en ts of c ou ns el pre se nt ed , andth e wel l-r eas on edfin di ng s o f fac t an d
co nc lu si on s o f la w m ad e b y th e d is tri ctco ur t. Fi nd in g n o e rro r, th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ctco urt i s af

firm ed
. AFFIR MED.

2
No. 47573.

#### Petition 6235-R of V. W. Davis (Duluth).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

The petition was dismissed, having been formally abandoned.
# C_2016279EN.01000802.xml

| 1.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/8

---

Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 May 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Security Service Srl (C-692/15), Il Camaleonte Srl (C-693/15), Vigilanza Privata Turris Srl (C-694/15) v Ministero dell’Interno (C-692/15 and C-693/15), Questura di Napoli, Questura di Roma (C-692/15)

(Joined Cases C-692/15 to C-694/15) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Article 53(2) - Freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services - Purely internal situation - Court’s manifest lack of jurisdiction))

(2016/C 279/13)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Security Service Srl (C-692/15), Il Camaleonte Srl (C-693/15), Vigilanza Privata Turris Srl (C-694/15)

Applicants:

Defendants: Ministero dell’Interno (C-692/15 and C-693/15), Questura di Napoli, Questura di Roma (C-692/15)

Defendants:

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State, Italy) by decisions of 12 November 2015.

---

(1)  OJ C 106, 21.3.2016.

1

---
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.
 Date: June 13, 2011
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Arthur F. TrudelArthur F. TrudelSenior Vice President, Chief Financial Officerand Secretary
No. 53193.

#### Corona Trading Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 134946-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
PUBLIC LAW 110–125—NOV. 30, 2007 121 STAT. 1353 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 3308: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 153 (2007): 

Oct. 9, considered and passed House. 

Nov. 16, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 110–125 

110th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 216 East 

Main Street in Atwood, Indiana, as the ‘‘Lance Corporal David K. Fribley Post 

Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. LANCE CORPORAL DAVID K. FRIBLEY POST OFFICE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 216 East Main Street in Atwood, Indiana, shall 

be known and designated as the ‘‘Lance Corporal David K. Fribley 

Post Office’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Lance Corporal David K. Fribley Post Office’’. 

Approved November 30, 2007. 

Nov. 30, 2007 

[H.R. 3308] 


jbridges on POFP91QD1 with PUBLIC LAWS
Exhibit 32.2


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 of Trinity Industries, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2017 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James E. Perry, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 result of operations of the Company, as of, and for, the periods presented in the Report.




/s/ James E. Perry


James E. Perry


Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


July 26, 2017


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.
# C_2015205EN.01001701.xml

| 22.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa (Portugal) lodged on 30 March 2015 — Cruz & Companhia Lda v Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas IP (IFAP), Caixa Central — Caixa Central de Crédito Agrícola Mútuo CRL

(Case C-152/15)

(2015/C 205/23)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa (Portugal)

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Cruz & Companhia Lda

Applicant:

Defendant: Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas IP (IFAP), Caixa Central — Caixa Central de Crédito Agrícola Mútuo CRL

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

The Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa asks the ECJ:

| — | whether a bank guarantee, provided in order to obtain an advance on export refunds, may not be enforced where it is only during inspections carried out after the actual export and customs clearance of the goods at issue that it is established that ‘other conditions’ have not yet been satisfied; |
| --- | --- |

—

whether a bank guarantee, provided in order to obtain an advance on export refunds, may not be enforced where it is only during inspections carried out after the actual export and customs clearance of the goods at issue that it is established that ‘other conditions’ have not yet been satisfied;

| — | or whether, on the contrary, such a guarantee may be enforced where the ‘other conditions’ are not satisfied, even if that fact is established only after customs clearance. |
| --- | --- |

—

or whether, on the contrary, such a guarantee may be enforced where the ‘other conditions’ are not satisfied, even if that fact is established only after customs clearance.

---
Before the Second Division,

December 6, 1944

No. 49840.

#### Protests 475600-G, etc., of Amberg Schwab & Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
### S anitized

1

### S anitized

2

### S anitized

3