alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v JERRY L. BROWN, Private, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

10 USCMA 536, 28 CMR 102

No. 13,149

Decided July 15, 1959

*Lieutenant Colonel E. W. Johnson,*USMC, represented Appellant, Accused.

*Commander Craig McKee,*USN, represented Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

ROBERT E. Quinn, Chief Judge:

The accused was convicted of three specifications alleging larceny, in violation of Article 121, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 921, and was sentenced to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement at hard labor for one and a half years and total forfeitures. The *537convening authority approved the punitive discharge and total forfeitures but reduced the confinement to six months. He ordered the sentence executed, suspending the punitive discharge “for the period of confinement or completion of appellate review, whichever is the later date.”

Following affirmance by the board of review, the accused petitioned this Court for review, contending that the uncertainty of the period of probation and the omission of conditional remittance in the suspended portion of the sentence prejudice his substantial rights. In support of this contention he invites our attention to SECNAV Notice 5816 wherein the Secretary of the Navy promulgated directions to all subordinate commanders announcing that this Court’s decision in United States v May, 10 USCMA 858, 27 CMR 432, shall be given only prospective effect. The directive further declares that no hearings need be held prior to the execution of punitive discharges in cases in which the convening authority’s action was taken prior to the release of the *May*opinion.

The convening authority’s action in the instant case directed execution of a portion of the sentence. Under Article 71 (c) of the Code, supra, this could not be done unless the punitive discharge was suspended. The action; therefore, did not create the “technical suspension” referred to in United States v May, supra. Rather, it resulted in the status of probation contemplated by Article 72(a) and the punitive discharge cannot be ordered executed without the hearing therein provided.

The “technical suspension” alluded to in *May*occurs only when no portion of the sentence is carried into execution and the order of suspension is no more than an order withholding the order of execution.

It follows from this that the punitive discharge adjudged in the instant case can not be carried into execution without conducting the hearing required by Article 72 (a) of the Code, supra. With this understanding the accused’s petition for review is denied.

Judge FERGUSON concurs.

LatimeR, Judge

(concurring in the result) :

I concur in the result.

I agree that accused’s petition for grant of review should be denied. However, for the reasons I set forth in my separate opinions in United States v May, 10 USCMA 358, 27 CMR 432; United States v Cecil, 10 USCMA 371, 27 CMR 445; United States v Holzhuter, 10 USCMA 374, 27 CMR 448; and United States v De Vore, 10 USCMA 375, 27 CMR 449, I must dissociate myself from the remainder of the instant opinion.
# C_2019305EN.01003201.xml

| 9.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 305/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2019 — Silver Plastics and Johannes Reifenhäuser v Commission

(Case T-582/15) (1)

(Competition - Cartels - Retail food packaging market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Evidence of involvement in a cartel - Single and continuous infringement - Principle of equality of arms - ‘Right to confront’ - 2006 Leniency Notice - Significant added value - Attributability of unlawful conduct - 2006 Guidelines for calculating the amount of fines - Proportionality - Equal treatment - Upper limit of the fine)

(2019/C 305/38)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Silver Plastics GmbH & Co. KG (Troisdorf, Germany) and Johannes Reifenhäuser Holding GmbH & Co. KG (Troisdorf) (represented initially by M. Wirtz, S. Möller and W. Carstensen, then by M. Wirtz, S. Möller and C. Karbaum, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by A. Biolan, G. Meessen, I. Zaloguin and L. Wildpanner, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking, principally, the annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2015) 4336 final of 24 June 2015 relating to proceedings under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39563 — Retail Food Packaging) and, in the alternative, the reduction of the fines imposed on the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Silver Plastics GmbH & Co. KG and Johannes Reifenhäuser Holding GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Silver Plastics GmbH & Co. KG and Johannes Reifenhäuser Holding GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 16, 18.1.2016.

---
1 Ireland filed anuntimely application for discretionary appeal challenging the trial court’ s order, which we dismis sed f

or lack of

jurisdic tion. See

Case No. A14D0424 , dismissed on July 15, 2014
. 

## Court of Appeals of the State of Geo rgia

ATLA NTA,

_________________ ___ The Court of

Appeals hereby passes

the followi

ng order: A14A2228. LONNY IRELA ND v. THE STATE. In2004, Lonn

y Ire land pled gui lty to t

wo coun ts of aggr avated ass ault, two counts of kidnapping with bodily injury, aggravated sexual battery , aggravated sod omy, and posse ssionof a f irea rm or k nif

e du rin g th e co mmissi on o f a fe lon y. Ireland filed a motion for resenten cing in March 2014, which the trial court denied onApril 4, 2014. 1 Ireland filed a motion for reconsideration of the trial court’ s order, and the trial court denied that motion on May 6, 2014. Ire land filed his notice of appeal on Ju

ne 2, 2014. We la ck juris diction. A notice of a

ppeal m ust be file d within

30 d ays after the entry

of the trial court ’s order. OCGA § 5-6-38 (a). The proper and timely f iling of a notice of appeal is an absolu te requirement t o confer juris diction upon thi s Court. Couch v. U ni ted Paperwork

ers Intl. U

nion , 224 Ga. A

pp. 721 (482 SE2d 704) (1997). T he denial o f amotion for rec onsiderati on is not directly appealab le, and th e filing of such a motion does not extend the time for filing an appeal. See Bell v. Cohran , 244 Ga. A pp. 510, 511 (536 SE2d

187) (2000) ; Savage v . Newsome , 173 Ga. A pp. 271 (326 SE2d 5) (1985)
. Irelan d file his n otic e of ap peal 5 9 days a fter t he ent ry of the trial court ’s order denying his mo tion for re sentencing . Acco rdi ngl y, we lack jurisdic tion to consider this app eal, which is hereby DISMISSED. September 24, 2014Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, At

lanta,_____

_______________ I c ertify t hat the abo ve is a true extract fro m the minutes of the Court

of Appeals

of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of s aid court hereto aff

ixed the day and year last above writt

en. , Clerk. 09/24/2014
Exhibit
4.1


See
Transfer Restrictions on Reverse Side


 


	No.
    SPECIMEN	SPECIMEN
    Shares


 


NETCAPITAL
INC.


 


Incorporated
Under the Laws of the State of Utah


 


Common
Stock, $0.001 Par Value Per Share, Cusip No. 64113L103


 


THIS
CERTIFIES THAT **Specimen** is the owner of **SPECIMEN (SPECIMEN)** fully paid and nonassessable shares of Common
Stock, $0.001 Par Value Per Share, of Netcapital Inc. transferable on the books of the Corporation by the holder in person or by duly
authorized attorney upon surrender of this certificate properly endorsed. This certificate and the shares represented hereby are issued
and shall be subject to all of the provisions of the Articles of Incorporation and amendments thereto filed or to be filed or recorded
in the office of the Secretary of the State of Utah and to the provisions of the Bylaws of the Corporation as now or hereafter amended.


 


WITNESS
the signatures of the duly authorized officers of Netcapital Inc.


 


 


	Date:	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	Chief
    Executive Officer	 	Secretary


A-1


THESE
SECURITIES HAVE NOT BEEN REGISTERED UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED, OR ANY STATE SECURITIES LAWS. THEY MAY NOT BE SOLD,
OFFERED FOR SALE, PLEDGED OR HYPOTHECATED IN THE ABSENCE OF A REGISTRATION STATEMENT IN EFFECT WITH RESPECT TO THE SECURITIES UNDER SUCH
ACT OR AN OPINION OF COUNSEL SATISFACTORY TO THE COMPANY THAT SUCH REGISTRATION IS NOT REQUIRED OR UNLESS SOLD PURSUANT TO RULE 144 OF
SUCH ACT.


 


For
value received, __________________________ hereby sells, assigns and transfers unto __________________


 


(PLEASE
INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER(S) OF ASSIGNEE(S))


	 
	(PLEASE
    PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS, INCLUDING ZIP CODE, OF ASSIGNEE)
	 
	 
	 


 


Shares
represented by the within Certificate, and does hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint Attorney to transfer the said shares on the
books of the within named Company with full power of substitution in the premises.


 


 


 


 




    	 



    	 



    

 


	Dated	 	 	 


 


	 	 	 	Shareholder
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	NOTICE:
    THE SIGNATURE(S) TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR,
    WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER.
	 	 	 	 
	Signature(s)
    Guaranteed:	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	By:	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 


 


THE
SIGNATURE(S) MUST BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION (BANKS, STOCKBROKERS, SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS AND CREDIT UNIONS
WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN APPROVED SIGNATURE GUARANTEE MEDALLION PROGRAM, PURSUANT TO S.E.C. RULE 17Ad-15 OR ANY SUCCESSOR RULE).
No. 50274.

#### Protest 98438-K of F. A. Baker Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83, decided February 5, 1945.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should have been converted at the buying rate in the New York mark.et at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on each of the entries. The protest was sustained to this extent.
Exhibit 10.51              CONSULTING AGREEMENT


THIS  CONSULTING  AGREEMENT,  dated  as  of this 1st day of March 2003 between
Gary  D.  Babbitt  of 877 Main Street, Suite 1000, Boise, ID. 83701-1617 ("GDB")
and  United  States  Antimony  Corporation of 1250 Prospect Creek Road, Thompson
Falls,  Montana  59873  ("USAC"),  pursuant to which GDB and USAC have agreed as
follows:

     (1) CONSULTATION SERVICES.-GDB will provide consultation services including
legal,  business,  technical, negotiation, sales, and advising the USAC Board of
Directors with regards to zeolite and antimony.  This contract does not cover
GDB's work as general counsel to USAC which is performed through Hawley Troxell,
Ennis, & Hawley of Boise, Idaho.

     (2) TERM.- The term of this agreement is a period of three years commencing
from  the  date  first  above written. Changes or renewal of this agreement will
require  mutual  agreement  of  both  parties.

     (3) COMPENSATION.-- The compensation to GDB shall consist of 200,000 shares
of  unregistered Series D United States Antimony Corporation Preferred Stock and
200,000 unregistered Series D United States Antimony Corporation Preferred Stock
Purchase warrants exercisable at $.30 for a period of three years for consulting
work  through  28 February 2003. In addition, for each subsequent year, GDB will
be  paid  an  amount to be determined by the USAC Board of Directors based on
stock price.

     (4) ENTIRE AGREEMENT.-- This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the
parties.  No modifications of the terms and conditions of this Agreement will be
valid or binding on the parties unless made in writing after the date hereof and
signed  by  each  of  the  parties.

     (5)  GOVERNING  LAW.--  This  Agreement shall be construed according to the
laws  of  the  State  of  Idaho,  USA.

     (6)  SUPERCEDES ALL PREVIOUS AGREEMENTS.--This agreement supercedes all
previous Agreements.

IN  WITNESS  WHEREOF, the parties have caused the Agreement to be executed as of
the  date  first  above  written,

By/s/ Gary D. Babbitt (GDB)

Print  Name Gary D. Babbitt

By/s/ John C. Lawrence(USAC)
1

The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-4417

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Todd L. Parde, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 14, 2007

Filed: February 22, 2007

___________

Before RILEY, MAGILL, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Todd L. Parde (Parde) pled guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with

intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine mixture, in violation of

21 U.S.C. § 846. The district court1

 sentenced him to the statutory minimum term of

120 months’ imprisonment and five years’ supervised release. On appeal, Parde

argues the district court erred by denying his downward-departure motion under

U.S.S.G. § 5K2.13. However, the district court was without authority to sentence him

below the statutory minimum because the government did not file a substantial-
-2-

assistance motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) and he was not eligible for safety-valve

relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). See United States v. Chacon, 330 F.3d 1065, 1066

(8th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________
EXHIBIT 32.2



TWL CORPORATION



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 Learning Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Patrick R Quinn, 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, to the best of my knowledge:



1.

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and 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 Company.





Date:

May 21, 2007



/s/ Patrick R. Quinn



Patrick R Quinn



Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to TWL Corporation and will be retained by it and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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 Trinity Learning  Corporation  (the "Company")  Quarterly
Report on Form 10-QSB/ A for the period ended  September  30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Christine R. Larson, 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, to the best of my knowledge:

     1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities and 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 Company.


Date: October 28, 2004

                                                /S/ Christine R. Larson
                                                -----------------------
                                                Christine R. Larson
                                                Chief Financial Officer




     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
     been provided to Trinity Learning Corporation and will be retained by it
     and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
     request.
Enclosure No. 1: Listing of Philadelphia AMS RACT Determinations for the 1997 8

- Hour

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard
Appendix A

– Philadelphia AMS SIP Revision Tracking Number 20140626 Appendix A addresses source

- specific RACT determinations for the following major sources of NO x : Exelon Generating Company

– Delaware Station; Exelon Generating Company

– Richmond Station; Exelon Generating Company

– Schuylkill Station; Veolia Energy Philadelphia

– Edison Statio n ; and Veolia Energy Philadelphia

– Schuylkill Station

. This a ppendix also includes revisions to the RACT plan approvals for: Exelon Generating Company

– Richmond Station; Veolia Energy Philadelphia

– Edison Station; and Veolia Energy Philadelphia

– Schuylkill Station. Philadelphia AMS prov ided a public comment period for this SIP revision from June 26, 2014 , to July 28, 2014 , and prepared a C omment and R esponse document

. Appendix B

– Philadelphia AMS SIP Revision Tracking Number 20140918 Appendix B addresses source

- specific RACT determin ations for certain major so ur ces of VOC or NO x , or both and certifies that certain previously adopted source

- specific RACT controls app r oved by the EPA in the Pennsylvania SIP under the 1

- hour ozone NAAQS continue to adequately represent RACT for the 1997 8

- hour ozone NAAQS

. The public comment period for this SIP revision took place from September 18, 2014 , to October 20, 2014 , and a Comment and Response document was prepared

. Revised RACT plan approvals are also enclosed for the following facilities: Cardone Industries; Honeywell International, formerly Sunoco Chemical

– Frankford Plant; Kinder Morgan Liquid Terminals, former ly GATX ; PaperWorks , formerly Jefferson Smurfit; Philadelphia Energy Solutions Refinery, formerly Sunoco Refinery; Philadelphia G as Works

– Richmond; and Temple University

– Health Sciences.

This Appendix also includes new RACT plan approvals which were not part of the 1

- hour ozone RACT for the following facilities: Grays Ferry Co g eneration Partnership; Temple University

– Main Ca mpus; and Veolia Energy Efficiency.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL POSITION AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS
OF EARNINGS AND RETAINED EARNINGS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000

<S>                             <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                  Jan-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    Apr-01-2000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         3-MOS
<CASH>                               67,000
<SECURITIES>                         90,553
<RECEIVABLES>                        26,444
<ALLOWANCES>                          2,115
<INVENTORY>                          36,275
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    235,910
<PP&E>                              189,545
<DEPRECIATION>                       90,425
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      533,247
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                61,986
<BONDS>                               7,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                             34,397
<OTHER-SE>                          392,941
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        533,247
<SALES>                              78,015
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     78,015
<CGS>                                36,948
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        22,942
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                      2,423
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         57
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      171
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      20,378
<INCOME-TAX>                          7,315
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  13,063
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                         13,063
<EPS-BASIC>                           .26
<EPS-DILUTED>                           .26


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 79 (Wednesday, April 25, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 20519]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-7799]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL04-49-003]


Entergy Services, Inc.; Notice of Filing

April 18, 2007.
    Take notice that on April 16, 2007, Entergy Services Inc., acting 
as agent for Entergy Louisiana, LLC filed a refund report, pursuant to 
the Commission's February 28, 2007 Order.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. 
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of 
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#eea8abbcada1808287808bbd9b9e9e819c9aae888b9c8dc0898198"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f6b0b3a4b5b9989a9f9893a5838686998482b690938495d8919980">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on May 7, 2007.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-7799 Filed 4-24-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
No. 40371.

#### Protest 933782-G of Bert Friedberg & Co. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Sullivan, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of tennis rackets the same as those passed upon in *May*v. *United States*(T. D. 47760). The claim at 30 percent under paragraph 1502 was therefore sustained.