alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
p.1 

OAR Box 1132 

Prepped by Candice Davis 

Document Number: 

11) ll-C-8 

Docket Number: 

A-86-03 

Printed 4/18/2008 2.-24:46 PM Sheet 11 of 122 
P.2 

UN ITEO 10TES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION A^C Y " ~°° '^ 3

 -^" ^ '« 

JUN -5'93T 

Mr. N. P. Hudson 

Senior Vice President 

Cross Oil and Refining 

P.O. Box 105 

Smackover, Arkansas 71762 

Dear Mr. Hudson: 

Thank you for describing the consequences facing your 

company should EPA require low-sulfur diesel fuel. We do 

recognize the importance of smaller refiners in providing 

products and jobs to local communities — our analysis of the 

impacts on small refiners will be a major component in our 

deliberation on diesci fuel sulfur controls. 

One area we will be evaluating soon is the capital cost 

small refiners woul' incur with the implementation of sulfur 

controls. Your estimated capital expenditures to remove sulfur 

from diesel fuel appear to be $10,000 per barrel per day of 

output. This compares to about $4,000 per barrel per day for 

other small refiners (total refinery input under 30,000 barrels 

per day), according to information provided to us by the 

National Petroleun Refiners Association from a recent survey of 

their oerabers. Any detailed breakdowns you can provide us of 

your estimated capital costs vould be very helpful in fully 

understanding your situation and those of other refiners who 

are in a siailar position. 

Sincerely yours, 

ORIGINAL SIGNED BY 

RICHARD D.WILSON 

Richard D. Wilson 

Director, Office of Mobile Sources
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

517 

KA 15-01130 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, AND NEMOYER, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DANIEL FINOCCHIARO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (EVAN HANNAY OF COUNSEL),

FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (JAMES P. MAXWELL

OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Onondaga County Court (Joseph E.

Fahey, J.), entered January 27, 2015. The order determined that

defendant is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender

Registration Act. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order designating him a

level three sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act

(Correction Law § 168 et seq.). Contrary to defendant’s contention,

County Court did not “summarily adopt[ ]” the recommendation of the

Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders in classifying defendant as a

level three risk, nor did the court fail to set forth the conclusions

of law upon which it based its determination. Moreover, the People

did not fail to establish facts supporting the level three risk

determination by clear and convincing evidence, as required (see

§ 168-n [3]; People v Mingo, 12 NY3d 563, 571; People v Warrior, 57

AD3d 1471, 1472; People v Hamelinck, 23 AD3d 1060, 1060). In

particular, the People adduced clear and convincing proof supporting

the assessment of 20 points against defendant under risk factor 7,

which covers defendant’s relationship with the victim. Given

defendant’s plea of guilty to disseminating indecent material to a 12-

year-old in violation of Penal Law § 235.22, and further considering

defendant’s plea of guilty to having raped or sexually abused at least

four additional underage girls throughout 2010, we conclude that there

is ample evidence supporting the finding that defendant established

his relationship with the 12-year-old for the purpose of victimizing

her.

We reject defendant’s contention that the court erred in failing

to consider, as a basis for a downward departure from the presumptive
-2- 517 

KA 15-01130 

risk level, defendant’s expressions of remorse at sentencing. “A

departure from the presumptive risk level is warranted where ‘there

exists an aggravating or mitigating factor of a kind or to a degree,

not otherwise adequately taken into account by the guidelines’ (Sex

Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary

at 4 [1997 ed])” (People v Guaman, 8 AD3d 545, 545; see People v

Gillotti, 23 NY3d 841, 861; Hamelinck, 23 AD3d at 1060). An

offender’s acceptance or nonacceptance of responsibility is taken into

account by the guidelines (see People v Filkins, 128 AD3d 1231, 1232,

lv denied 26 NY3d 904).

Entered: June 10, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
Before the Third Division,

November 15, 1945

No. 50664.

#### Protests 95687-K, etc., of C. J. Tower & Sons (Buffalo).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the boron carbide in question is the same in all material respects as that the subject of *Tower & Sons*v. *United States*(14 Cust. Ct. 84, C. D. 917). In accordance therewith the merchandise was held dutiable as claimed.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

May 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132842 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 132842 

 COA: 270472 

Wayne CC: 81-172401 

JEROME SWEEZER,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 28, 2006 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

s0521 

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. 

May 30, 2007 

 Clerk
Exhibit 32

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Chiquita Brands International, Inc. (the company), does hereby certify,
to such officers knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 of the company fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the company.

Dated: August 4, 2006



/s/ Fernando AguirreName:

Fernando AguirreTitle:

Chief Executive Officer


Dated: August 4, 2006



/s/ Jeffrey M. ZallaName:

Jeffrey M. ZallaTitle:

Chief Financial Officer




- 1 -
# C_2016211EN.01005101.xml

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/51

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2016 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Theralab (VICHY LABORATOIRES V IDÉALIA)

(Case T-144/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark VICHY LABORATOIRES V IDÉALIA - Earlier EU word mark IDEALINA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 211/64)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: L’Oréal, SA (Paris, France) (represented by: J. Sena Mioludo, avocat)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Theralab — Produtos Farmacêuticos e Nutracêuticos, Lda (Viseu, Portugal)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 January 2015 (Case R 1097/2014-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Theralab — Produtos Farmacêuticos e Nutracêuticos and L’Oréal.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders L’Oréal, SA, to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders L’Oréal, SA, to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 171, 26.5.2015.

---
No. 65715.

#### George J. Young, a/c Fisherman’s Cooperative Assn. of San Pedro, et al. *v.*United States,

protests 59/29018, etc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of fishing netting similar in all material respects to that involved in Abstract 63947, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 12 (Friday, January 19, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 2581]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-828]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 5671]


Revised Notice of Meeting of the Advisory Committee on 
International Law

    A meeting of the Advisory Committee on International Law will take 
place on Friday, January 26, 2007, from 10 a.m. to approximately 4 
p.m., in Room 1105 of the United States Department of State, 2201 C 
Street, NW., Washington, DC. The meeting will be chaired by the Legal 
Adviser of the Department of State, John B. Bellinger, III, and will be 
open to the public up to the capacity of the meeting room. Participants 
at the meeting will discuss a range of issues relating to current 
international legal topics, including the effectiveness of 
international trade law and international human rights law; issues 
related to the Geneva Conventions; the legal framework for detention 
and trial of international terrorists; issues relating to the practice 
of the United Nations Security Council, and issues relating to the 
immunities of foreign states and international organizations and their 
respective officials.
    Entry to the building is controlled and will be facilitated by 
advance arrangements. Members of the public who wish to attend the 
session should, by Wednesday, January 24, 2007, notify the Office of 
the Assistant Legal Adviser for Claims and Investment Disputes 
(telephone: 202-776-8351) of their name, date of birth; citizenship 
(country); ID number, i.e., U.S. government ID (agency), U.S. military 
ID (branch), passport (country) or driver's license (state); 
professional affiliation, address and telephone number in order to 
arrange admittance. This includes admittance for government employees 
as well as others. All attendees must use the ``C'' Street entrance. 
One of the following valid IDs will be required for admittance: any 
U.S. driver's license with photo, a passport, or a U.S. government 
agency ID. Because an escort is required at all times, attendees should 
expect to remain in the meeting for the entire morning or afternoon 
session.

    Dated: January 17, 2007.
Karin L. Kizer,
Attorney Adviser, Office of Claims and Investment Disputes, Office of 
the Legal Adviser, Executive Director, Advisory Committee on 
International Law, Department of State.
 [FR Doc. E7-828 Filed 1-18-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-08-P
October 26, 1970

No. 70-61

#### Walter J. Whitley, CDR, U. S. Navy v Honorable John H. Chafee, Secretary of the Navy and RADM Joseph B. McDevitt, USN, The Judge Advocate General of the Navy.

ORDERED:

That said Petition be, and the same is, hereby denied without prejudice to the right to raise the issues before the Court of Military Review or on appeal to this Court should an appeal be considered necessary or desirable.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 19-11305

Conference Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Adan Bustos-Barron, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:17-CR-237-1

Before Davis, Elrod, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Adan BustosBarron has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Bustos-Barron has not filed a response. We have 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 10, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-11305 Document: 00515895633 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/10/2021
No. 19-11305

2

reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected 

therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no 

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for 

leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further 

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. 

R. 42.2.

Case: 19-11305 Document: 00515895633 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/10/2021
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO.: 2:13-cr-289 (05)

JUDGE SMITH

MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAVERS

BERRYON F. MOORE, III,

Defendant.

ORDER

On January 26, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), recommending that the Court accept Defendant’s guilty plea to Count One

of the Second Superseding Indictment charging him with conspiracy to possess with intent to

distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(C) and § 846.

Defendant, represented by counsel, waived his right to appear on the matter before a District

Judge. The Magistrate Judge conducted the colloquy required by Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of

Criminal Procedure. Defendant’s plea was knowing, voluntary, free from coercion, and had a basis

in fact. 

Defendant was specifically informed of his right to contest the Report and Recommendation

by filing any objections within 14 days of the issuance of the Report and Recommendation pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant did

not file any objections. 

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and ACCEPTS 

Defendant’s plea of guilty to Count One of the Second Superseding Indictment. Defendant is hereby

Case: 2:13-cr-00289-EAS Doc #: 260 Filed: 02/25/15 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
adjudged guilty of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute heroin.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ George C. Smith 

GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

-2-

Case: 2:13-cr-00289-EAS Doc #: 260 Filed: 02/25/15 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
##### 



EXHIBIT 32
 Certification by the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
Relating to a Periodic Report Containing Financial Statements
  (1)
    
    The Companys periodic report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007
(the Form 10-Q) fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
    
    
    
    CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER/s/ David W. Trego
    
    
    
    /s/ John C. BarneyDavid W. Trego
    
    
    
    John C. BarneyDate: August 9, 2007
    
    
    
    Date: August 9, 2007
```

[110th Congress Public Law 132]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ132.110]

[[Page 121 STAT. 1360]]

Public Law 110-132
110th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To reauthorize the African Elephant Conservation Act and the Rhinoceros 
and Tiger Conservation Act of 1994. <<NOTE: Dec. 6, 2007 -  [H.R. 50]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress <<NOTE: Multinational Species 
Conservation Funds Reauthorization Act of 2007.>> assembled,
SECTION 1. <<NOTE: 16 USC 4201 note.>> SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Multinational Species Conservation 
Funds Reauthorization Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION AND AMENDMENT OF AFRICAN ELEPHANT 
                    CONSERVATION ACT.

    (a) Notice of Approval of Project Proposal.--Section 2101(c) of the 
African Elephant Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 4211(c)) is amended by 
striking ``and to each country within which the project is proposed to 
be conducted''.
    (b) Administrative Expenses.--Section 2306(b) of the African 
Elephant Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 4245(b)) is amended by striking 
``$80,000'' and inserting ``$100,000''.
    (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 2306(a) of the African 
Elephant Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 4245(a)) is amended by striking 
``2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007'' and inserting ``2007 
through 2012''.
SEC. 3. REAUTHORIZATION AND AMENDMENT OF RHINOCEROS AND TIGER 
                    CONSERVATION ACT OF 1994.

    (a) Notice of Approval of Project Proposal.--Section 5(c) of the 
Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act of 1994 (16 U.S.C. 5304(c)) is 
amended in the third sentence by striking ``, to the Administrator, and 
to each country within which the project is to be conducted'' and 
inserting ``and to the Administrator''.
    (b) Administrative Expenses.--Section 10(b) of the Rhinoceros and 
Tiger Conservation Act of 1994 (16 U.S.C. 5306(b)) is amended by 
striking ``$80,000'' and inserting ``$100,000''.
    (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 10(a) of the 
Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act of 1994 (16 U.S.C. 5306(a))

[[Page 121 STAT. 1361]]

is amended by striking ``2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007'' 
and inserting ``2007 through 2012''.

    Approved December 6, 2007.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 50:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 110-244 (Comm. on Natural Resources).
SENATE REPORTS: No. 110-211 (Comm. on Environment and Public Works).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 153 (2007):
            July 23, considered and passed House.
            Nov. 16, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
# C_2017277EN.01000801.xml

| 21.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 277/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 277/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Stichting Brein v Ziggo BV, XS4ALL Internet BV

(Case C-610/15) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual and industrial property - Directive 2001/29/EC - Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights - Article 3(1) - Communication to the public - Definition - Online sharing platform - Sharing of protected files, without the consent of the rightholder))

(2017/C 277/09)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Stichting Brein

Applicant:

Defendants: Ziggo BV, XS4ALL Internet BV

Defendants:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The concept of ‘communication to the public’, within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, must be interpreted as covering, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the making available and management, on the internet, of a sharing platform which, by means of indexation of metadata relating to protected works and the provision of a search engine, allows users of that platform to locate those works and to share them in the context of a peer-to-peer network.

---

(1)  OJ C 48, 8.2.2016.

1

---
EXHIBIT 11.1
<TABLE>

                           SIERRA MONITOR CORPORATION

                       NET EARNINGS PER SHARE COMPUTATIONS

                                   (unaudited)

<CAPTION>
                                        (All amounts in thousands except per share data)

                                           Three Months Ended     Six Months Ended

                                            June 30,  June 30,   June 30,    June 30,
                                            --------  --------   --------    --------
                                             1997       1996      1997         1996
                                             ----       ----      ----         ----
<S>                                         <C>        <C>        <C>         <C>   

Weighted average shares outstanding

          Common Stock                      10,410     10,322     10,410      10,300

          Common Stock equivalents -

                options                        409        415       --           386
                                          --------   --------   --------    --------
          Total weighted average shares

                outstanding                 10,819     10,737     10,410      10,686

                                          ========   ========   ========    ========
Net income (loss)                         $     20   $     88   $    (30)   $     20
                                          ========   ========   ========    ========

Net income (loss) per share               $   0.00   $   0.01   $   0.00    $   0.00
                                          ========   ========   ========    ========
<FN>

Note:    Common  stock  equivalents  were  excluded  from the net loss per share
         computations due to the antidilutive effect.
</FN>
</TABLE>
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                       Exhibit 12.1



         United Air Lines, Inc. and Subsidiary Companies
                                
        Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                                
                                

                                                Nine Months Ended
                                                   September 30

                                                 1997        1996
                                                 ----        ----
                                                   (In Millions)
<S>                                            <C>         <C>
Earnings:                                                 
                                                          
   Earnings before income taxes and                       
     extraordinary item                        $1,444      $  936
   Fixed charges, from below                      734         958
   Undistributed earnings of affiliates           (20)        (40)
   Interest capitalized                           (75)        (57)
                                                -----       -----   
       Earnings                                $2,083      $1,797
                                                =====       =====
                                                          
Fixed charges:                                            
                                                          
   Interest expense                            $  216      $  227
   Portion of rental expense                              
     representative of the interest factor        518         731
                                                -----       -----
       Fixed charges                           $  734      $  958
                                                =====       =====
                                                          
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges               2.84        1.88
                                                =====       =====
                                                          
</TABLE>
APPENDIX A-1 

PLAN AND PROFILE DRAWINGS 

SEGMENT 2