alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016260EN.01003902.xml

| 18.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 260/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/39

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 23 May 2016 — Pari Pharma v EMA

(Case T-235/15 R)

((Application for interim measures - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents held by the EMA concerning information submitted by an undertaking as part of its application for authorisation to place a medicinal product on the market - Order granting suspension of operation of the decision to grant a third party access to the documents - Application for cancellation - No change in circumstances - Article 159 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court))

(2016/C 260/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Pari Pharma GmbH (Starnberg, Germany) (represented by: M. Epping and W. Rehmann, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Medicines Agency (represented by: T. Jabłoński, N. Rampal Olmedo, A. Spina, A. Rusanov and S. Marino, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: Novartis Europharm Ltd (Camberley, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Schoonderbeek, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application based on Article 159 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court seeking the cancellation of the order of 1 September 2015 in Pari Pharma v EMA (T-235/15 R, EU:T:2015:587), by which it granted the suspension of operation of Decision EMA/271043/2015 of the EMA of 24 April 2015, granting to a third party, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43), access to certain documents containing information submitted in the context of an application for marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Vantobra.

Pari Pharma

EMA

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The request seeking the cancellation of the order of 1 September 2015 in Pari Pharma v EMA (T-235/15 R, EU:T:2015:587) is rejected. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The request seeking the cancellation of the order of 1 September 2015 in Pari Pharma v EMA (T-235/15 R, EU:T:2015:587) is rejected.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---
No. 54892.

#### Bohemian Distributing Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 120696-K, etc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

                             UNITED-GUARDIAN, INC.
               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  United-Guardian,  Inc. (the
"Registrant") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending June 30, 2003, as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Alfred R. Globus,  Chief Executive  Officer of the  Registrant,  hereby 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.

August 5, 2003                            /s/ Alfred R. Globus
                                          ---------------------------
                                          Alfred R. Globus
                                          Chief Executive Officer
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 7226** 

JAMES GARLAND MANN , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Department of Corrections , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond
. Robert E. Payne , Senior District Judge. ( 3:11

- cv - 00711

- REP )

Submitted : December 19, 2012 Decided: January 31, 2013

Before MOTZ , WYNN, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. David Bernard Hargett, HARGETT LAW, PLC, Glen Allen, Virginia, for Appellant. Susan Mozley Harris, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: James Garland Mann seeks to appeal the district
court ’ s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (A) (2006) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “ a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. ” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the meri ts, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Mann has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSE D
(Reap. Dec. 10274)

#### J. Ossola Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 797350, etc.

*681(Decided June 19, 1962)

*Lane, Young é Fox*for tlie plaintiff.

*J oseph D. Guilfoyle,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawkence, Judge:

The appeals for a reapplaisement, enumerated in tlie schedule attached to and made a part of the decision herein, involve the proper value .for dutiable purposes of certain used steel drums.

The parties hereto have entered into a stipulation of fact, wherein it has been agreed as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between counsel for the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, as follows:

> 1. That the merchandise covered by each of the appeals for reappraisement, enumerated in Schedule A hereto attached, consists of used steel drums filled with olive oil and exported from Tunisia to the United States.

> 2. That on or about the relevant dates of exportation of said used steel drums, the price at which such or similar used drums was freely sold or, in the absence of sales, offered for sale in the principal markets of Tunisia, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, was $4.00 (U.S.) per drum.

> 3. That the question of the dutiable value of the used drums involved herein is the same as that decided in *United States*v. *E. R. Squibb & Sons, et al.,*42 C.C.P.A. (Customs) 23, C.A.D. 564.

Upon the record before the court, I find and hold that export value, as that value is defined in section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, 91 Treas. Dec. 295, T.D. 54165 (19 U.S.C. § 1401a (b)), is the proper basis of value for the steel drums in issue and that such value is $4 (U.S.) per drum.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MAURICE L. STEVENS,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 93 EM 2018

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 22nd day of October , 2018

, the Petition for Leave to File Petition

for Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is DENIED.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

** Lovelace v. Bowen , 813 F.2d 55 (5th Cir. 1987).

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-60168 Summary Calendar

LAVELL POWE, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus KENNETH S. APFEL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:97-CV-4-LS

- - - - - - - - - - January 27, 1999 Before GARWOOD, JOLLY, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Lavell Powe, Jr. appeals the district court’s affirmance of the Commissioner’s denial of his application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income disability benefits. He argues that the administrative law judge (ALJ): (1) violated the rule announced in Lovelace ** ; (2) failed to advise him of his right to counsel and failed to provide him with a fairNo. 98-60168 -2- hearing; (3) erroneously found that Powe was able to perform past

relevant work and failed to allow the testimony of a vocational expert; (4) erroneously found that Powe was not a credible witness; (5) applied the wrong legal standard and issued a decision that was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. To the extent that we have jurisdiction over the claims raised on appeal, see Paul v. Shalala , 29 F.3d 208, 210-211 (5th Cir. 1994)(failure to raise an issue before the Appeals Council deprives this court of jurisdiction over it on appeal absent a showing of a miscarriage of justice), we AFFIRM for the same reasons adopted by the district court. See Powe v. Callahan , 4:97-CV-4, (S.D. Miss. Feb 23, 1998).
AFFIRMED.
No. 59186.

protest 247221-K (New York).

#### American Handicrafts Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Since no appeal for reappraisement was filed, it was held that the court, sitting in classification, is without jurisdiction over questions of value. The importer having failed to avail itself of the remedy provided for by section 501, Tariff Act of 1930, the protest was dismissed.
## NO S . 12

- 11

- 00 122

- C R

12

- 11

- 00123

- CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

IN RE: §

AARON LAM ON MUSE

, § ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

RELATOR §

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator Aaron Lamon Muse filed a petition for writ of mandamus complaining of the trial

court’s failure to rule on various pro se motions he has filed. He asserts that the trial court has a

legal duty to rule on these motions and urges that mandamus is appropriate to r equire the trial

court to perform its duty. We deny the petition.

To demonstrate entitlement to a writ of mandamus in a criminal case, a relator must

establish that the trial court failed to perform a duty that is purely ministerial under the facts and

t he law, and that the relator has no other adequate legal remedy. State ex rel. Hill v. Fifth Court

of Appeals , 34 S.W.3d 924, 927 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (orig. proceeding).

A criminal defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation. See Robinson v. State , 240

S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). However, Relator admits that counsel has been

appointed to represent him in the criminal proceedings pending in the trial court. A trial court

has no legal duty to rule on pro se motions or petitions fi led with regard to a criminal proceeding

in which the defendant is represented by counsel. See id . Consequently, the trial court has not

violated a legal duty by failing to rule on Relator’s pro se motions. Because Relator has not

shown that the trial c ourt has a ministerial duty to rule on Relator’s pending motions, he cannot

show that mandamus is appropriate. Accordingly, Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is

denied

.2 SAM GRIFFITH

Justice

Opinion delivered May 11 , 2011.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

( DO NOT PUBLISH)
# L_2013185EN.01S00301.xml

| 4.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 185/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 185/s3

---

NOTICE TO READERS

Council Regulation (EU) No 216/2013 of 7 March 2013 on the electronic publication of the Official Journal of the European Union

In accordance with Council Regulation (EU) No 216/2013 of 7 March 2013 on the electronic publication of the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ L 69, 13.3.2013, p. 1), as of 1 July 2013, only the electronic edition of the Official Journal shall be considered authentic and shall have legal effect.

Official Journal of the European Union

Where it is not possible to publish the electronic edition of the Official Journal due to unforeseen and exceptional circumstances, the printed edition shall be authentic and shall have legal effect in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 216/2013.

---
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ROSHAN RAMKHELAWAN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D15-3824

[January 6, 2016]

Appeal of order dismissing rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Barbara McCarthy, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 04-822 CF10A.

Roshan Ramkhelawan, Florida City, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the circuit court’s order denying habeas corpus relief. Our 

affirmance is without prejudice to appellant seeking appellate review of the 

trial court’s disposition of the Rule 3.850 motion following the evidentiary 

hearing and entry of a final order. Fla. R. Crim.P. 3.850(k).

Affirmed without prejudice.

STEVENSON, GROSS and CONNER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Before the Third Division,

December 7, 1944

No. 49858.

#### Protest 99572-K of Electric Equipment Co. (Pembina).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

At the trial a letter from the shipper was found among the papers, submitting the case upon the record, without the introduction of evidence. Upon examination it was found that the article could have been admitted without duty under subsection 9 of section 308 as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938. It was not so entered, however, nor were the regulations attending the entry and exportation thereof complied with. Under the circumstances the court entered judgment in favor of the Government.
Exhibit 32.1

                          CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,
                           AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the
undersigned, as President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Operating Officer
of VSE Corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify that to the best of
the undersigned's knowledge:


	1) the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
March 31, 2009 (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 Company's Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.


Dated: April 30, 2009                    /s/ M. A. Gauthier
                                         __________________________________
                                         M. A. Gauthier
                                         Chief Executive Officer, President
                                         and Chief Operating Officer
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site.(Historical purposes)
**Title:****Shasta-Trinity National Forestforest wide LSR assessment [electronic resource].**
 
Vol. 1 | Vol. 2 | Additional Materials
 
SuDoc:A 13.2: SH 2/11
Item Number:0084 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000615300
 
October 23, 2017
<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
                                          1996      1995
                                         ------    ------
                                           (In Millions)
<S>                                     <C>       <C>
Earnings:                                                 
                                                          
   Earnings before income taxes and                   
       extraordinary item                $  936    $  630
   Fixed charges, from below                958       885
   Undistributed earnings of affiliates     (40)      (34)
   Interest capitalized                     (57)      (31)
                                         ------    ------             
       Earnings                          $1,797    $1,450
                                         ======    ======
                                                          
Fixed charges:                                            
                                                          
   Interest expense                      $  227    $  275
   Portion of rental expense                              
     representative of the 
     interest factor                        731       610
                                         ------    ------
   Fixed charges                         $  958    $  885
                                         ======    ======
                                                          
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges         1.88      1.64
                                         ======    ======
                                                          
</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-7126

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff- Appellee, 

 v. 

DENNIS ALLEN BREWER, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis III, Senior 

District Judge. (1:91-cr-00342-TSE-1) 

Submitted: October 21, 2008 Decided: October 29, 2008 

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Dennis Allen Brewer, Appellant Pro Se. Beth Nicole Gibson, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

 Dennis Allen Brewer seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order reducing his sentence from 360 months’ 

imprisonment to 324 months’ imprisonment under 18 U.S.C.A. 

§ 3582 (West 2000 & Supp. 2008). In criminal cases, the 

defendant must file the notice of appeal within ten days after 

the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A); see United 

States v. Alvarez, 210 F.3d 309, 310 (5th Cir. 2000) (holding 

that § 3582 proceeding is criminal in nature and ten-day appeal 

period applies). With or without a motion, upon a showing of 

excusable neglect or good cause, the district court may grant an 

extension of up to thirty days to file a notice of appeal. Fed. 

R. App. P. 4(b)(4); United States v. Reyes, 759 F.2d 351, 353 

(4th Cir. 1985). 

 The district court entered its order on April 25, 

2008. The notice of appeal was filed on June 19, 2008. Because 

Brewer failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an 

extension of the appeal period, we 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                5
<CIK>                    0000101295
<NAME>                   UNITED-GUARDIAN, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,194,987
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,104,306
<ALLOWANCES>                                    32,300
<INVENTORY>                                  1,273,168
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,915,119
<PP&E>                                       4,379,155
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,882,808
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,260,023
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          646,342
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       487,934
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,319,116
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,260,023
<SALES>                                      2,388,899
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,388,899
<CGS>                                        1,433,155
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,433,155
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                485,058
<INCOME-TAX>                                   180,900
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            304,158
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   304,158
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .06
        

</TABLE>