alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*No.*6467.

#### NATIONAL SURETY COMPANY vs. CRESCENT CITY MANUFACTURING COMPANY.

Syllabus.

On Motion to Dismiss.

An answer to an appeal which prays for an amendment of the judgment, waives the motion to dismiss.

*421Opinion and decree, June 30th, 1915.

Appeal from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, Division *“A,”*No. 108,596. Honorable T.. C. *W.*Ellis, Judge.

Grant & Grant, for plaintiff and appellee.

Denechaud & Eossi, for defendant and .appellant.

His Honor, JOHN ST. PAUL,

rendered tbe opinion and decree of tbe Court, as follows:

Tbe appellee moves, to dismiss this appeal (suspensive) on tbe ground that it was not taken within tbe delays allowed by law and on tbe further ground that tbe same is frivolous.

Appellee further pra.ys that it be allowed damages for frivolous appeal.

Tbe motion must be denied. “An answer to an appeal which prays for an amendment of tbe judgment, waives tbe motion to dismiss. ’ ’

Taggart vs. Noonan, 8 Ct. of Appeal, 159.

Motion denied.
# Appendix_2_table
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F e d. R . A pp. P . 34( a ) ( 2) . A c c or di ngl y , H upp’ s m ot i on f oror a l a r gum e nti s de ni e d. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T I n th e M a tt e ro f: PA U L H U PP, D ebt or. PA U L H U PP, A p p e lla n t, v. E D U C A T IO N A L C R E D IT MANA GE ME NT C OR P OR AT I ON , A pp el l ee , UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, I n te rv e n o r- A p p e lle e . N o. 08- 56403 D . C. N o . 3 : 0 8 - c v - 0 0 4 1 4 - H - RBB ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia M a r i l y n L . H uf

f , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d M a y25, 2010 ** 

# FI LED JU N 07 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 56403 2 B efo re: C A N B Y , T H O M A S , an dW . F L E T C H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P aul H upp appe a l s pr o s e f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s j udgm e nta f f i rm i ng the ba nkrupt c yc ourt ’ s or de ra f t e rabe nc h tr i a l r e ga r di ng di s c ha r ge of H upp’ s s tude nt l o a n s u n d e r1 1 U . S. C. § 5 2 3 ( a ) ( 8 ) . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U . S. C. § 1 5 8 ( d ) . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o , R i f i no v . U ni te d State s (

I n r e R i f i no) , 245 F . 3d 1 0 8 3 , 1 0 8 7 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 1 ) , a n dw e a f f i rm. T h e b a n k ru p tc yc o u rt p r o p e r lyd e te rm in e dth a t H u p p f a ile dto e s tab lis h th a t hi s c urr e nti nabi l i tyt o r e pa ythe l oa ns w a s l i ke l yt o pe r s i s tf oras i gni f

i c a ntport i on o f th e r e p a y m e n t p e r io da n dth a t h e h a dm a d e ag o o df a ith e f f o rt to r e p a yth e lo a n s . Se e id. a t 1 0 8 7 ( o u tlin in g th r e e - p r o n g te s t f o rd e b to rto e s tab lis h u n d u e h a r d s h ip u n d e r1 1 U .S .C . § 5 2 3 ( a ) ( 8 ) ) ; see a l so , E du c. Cred i t

M gm t. C o rp . v. M

a so n (In re M as on) , 4 6 4 F .3 d8 7 8 , 8 8 5 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ( c o n c lu d in g th a t d e b to rh a dn o t m e t h is bur de n of

e s t abl i s hi ng good f

a i th i n a tt e m pt i ng t o pa yba c k hi s l oa ns be c aus e he h a dn o t m a x im iz e dh is in c o m e a n dh a dn o t m a d e a d e q u a te e f f o rts to o b ta in ful l -t i m e e m pl oym entdespi t e hi s e du ca t i on al backgrou nd ). H up p’ s r em ai ni ng cont ent i on s are un pers uasi ve. A l l pe ndi ng m ot i ons a r e de ni e d. A FFI R M ED .
Exhibit
      32.1




CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
      connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Security Intelligence
      Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2006, as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Ben Jamil, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I,
      Chris R. Decker, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief that:




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




Dated:  May
      21,
      2007




/s/
              Ben
              JamilBen
                Jamil, Chief Executive Officer




/s/
              Chris R. DeckerChris
                  R. Decker, Chief Financial
                  Officer




This
      certification shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act
      of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Additional NHPA Consultation 

Documents (Updated 

September 30, 2015)

Proposed PSD Permit 

Amendment for the MCU 

Facility
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Prepping for hurricane relief at Robins

By Ed AsperaRobins Public Affairs

                ROBINS AIR FORCE BASE, Ga.  –              Robins Air Force Base was teeming with activity as Hurricane Irma approached Florida last week and through the weekend. At the FEMA Fuel Staging Area on base, Lee Mahan, from Chatham, Virginia, conducts preventive maintenance service prior to leaving for a mission in support of FEMA’s Hurricane relief effort.
Five photos show details of the support.
*Editor's note: The original story can be viewed on the Robins Air Force Base website.*

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

Hurricane IrmaFEMAfederal emergency management agencyfuelRobins Air Force Base
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Drug Enforcement Administration 

      ( print page 28078)    
                    By Notice dated July 26, 2006, and published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on August 2, 2006, (71 FR 43814-43815), Siegfried (USA) Inc., 33 Industrial Park Road, Pennsville, New Jersey 08070, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of Hydromorphone (9150), a basic class of controlled substance listed in schedule II.                 

The company plans to manufacture in bulk for distribution to its customers. 

No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Siegfried (USA), Inc. to manufacture the listed basic class of controlled substance is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Siegfried (USA), Inc. to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with State and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic class of controlled substance listed. 

Dated: May 10, 2007. 

Joseph T. Rannazzisi, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator,  Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration.

 [FR Doc. E7-9628 Filed 5-17-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
# C_2014409EN.01003402.xml

| 17.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 409/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 409/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 October 2014 — Tifosi Optics v OHIM — Tom Tailor (T)

(Case T-531/12) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark T - Earlier Community figurative mark T - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2014/C 409/49

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Tifosi Optics, Inc. (Watkinsville, United States) (represented initially by A. Tornato and D. Hazan, and subsequently by R. Gilbey, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Tom Tailor GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: O. Gillert, K. Vanden Bossche and B. Köhn-Gerdes, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 September 2012 (Case R 729/2011-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Tom Tailor GmbH and Tifosi Optics, Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the action. |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the action.

| 2) | Orders Tifosi Optics, Inc. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Tom Tailor GmbH. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders Tifosi Optics, Inc. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Tom Tailor GmbH.

---

(1)  OJ C 46, 16.2.2013.

1

---
No. 96-5842.

#### Adams *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
# C_2015389EN.01002601.xml

| 23.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 389/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 389/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2015 — Viasat Broadcasting UK v Commission

(Case T-125/12) (1)

1

((State aid - Public-service broadcasting - Decision declaring aid compatible with the internal market - Aid implemented by the Danish authorities in favour of the Danish public-service broadcaster TV2/Danmark - Public funding granted to offset the costs involved in the performance of public-service obligations - Compatibility of aid - Judgment in Altmark))

(2015/C 389/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd (West Drayton, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Kalsmose-Hjelmborg and M. Honoré, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented initially by C. Vang and V. Pasternak Jørgensen, acting as Agents, and subsequently by V. Pasternak Jørgensen and K. Lundgaard Hansen, lawyer, and finally by C. Thorning, acting as Agent, and by K. Lundgaard Hansen and R. Holgaard, lawyer); and TV2/Danmark A/S (Odense, Denmark) (represented by: O. Koktvedgaard, lawyer)

Interveners in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision 2011/839/EU of 20 April 2011 on the measures implemented by Denmark (C 2/03) for TV2/Danmark (OJ 2011 L 340, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that it is unnecessary to adjudicate on the action, in so far as it seeks the annulment of Commission Decision 2011/839/EU of 20 April 2011 on the measures implemented by Denmark (C 2/03) for TV2/Danmark, in that the Commission found that the advertising revenue from 1995 and 1996 paid to TV2/Danmark A/S by the TV2 Fund amounted to State aid; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that it is unnecessary to adjudicate on the action, in so far as it seeks the annulment of Commission Decision 2011/839/EU of 20 April 2011 on the measures implemented by Denmark (C 2/03) for TV2/Danmark, in that the Commission found that the advertising revenue from 1995 and 1996 paid to TV2/Danmark A/S by the TV2 Fund amounted to State aid;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

| 4. | Orders the Kingdom of Denmark to bear its own costs; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Kingdom of Denmark to bear its own costs;

| 5. | Orders TV2/Danmark to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders TV2/Danmark to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 12.5.2012.

1

---
No. 39152.

#### Protests 890053-G, etc., of O. Yoshizawa Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was found that the articles were specially imported for use as sweats in the manufacture of hats, that they are substantially complete except for a process known as reeding, and that they are cut from woven cotton cloth. On the authority of *Sand*v. *United States*(T. D. 49594) the claim at 37)4 percent under paragraph 919 was sustained.
(LOGO)

Report of Independent Accountants

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
1177 Avenue of the Americas
New York NY 10036
Telephone (212) 596 8000
Facsimile (212) 396 8910

February 19,1999

To the Stockholder and Board of Directors
of Atlantic Mortgage & Investment Corporation

We have examined  management's  assertion  about Atlantic  Mortgage & Investment
Corporation's (the "Company"')  compliance with the minimum servicing  standards
identified  in the Mortgage  Bankers  Association  of America's  Uniform  Single
Attestation  Program for  Mortgage  Bankers  (USAP) as of and for the year ended
December 31, 1998 included in the accompanying management assertion (see Exhibit
I).  Management is responsible  for the Company's  compliance with those minimum
servicing standards. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's
assertion about the entity's compliance based on our examination.

Our  examination  was  made in  accordance  with  standards  established  by the
American  Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,  accordingly,  included
examining,  on a test basis,  evidence about the Company's  compliance  with the
minimum  servicing   standards  and  performing  such  other  procedures  as  we
considered  necessary  in the  circumstances.  We believe  that our  examination
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a
legal  determination  on the  Company's  compliance  with the minimum  servicing
standards.

In our  opinion,  management's  assertion  that the  Company  complied  with the
aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and for the year ended December
31, 1998 is fairly stated, in all material respects.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
# C_2012138EN.01003701.xml

| 12.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/37

---

Action brought on 14 March 2012 — ZZ v BEREC

(Case F-35/12)

(2012/C 138/87)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: The Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications

Subject-matter and description of the dispute

Annulment of the decision to apply a medical retention provision to the applicant following the pre-recruitment medical examination as from his entry into service and the decision to reject the applicant’s objection.

Forms of order sought by the applicant

| — | Annul the decision to reject the applicant’s objection to the decision to apply a medical retention provision to him as from his entry into service; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision to reject the applicant’s objection to the decision to apply a medical retention provision to him as from his entry into service;

| — | where necessary, annul the decision to apply a medical retention provision to the applicant as from his entry into service; |
| --- | --- |

—

where necessary, annul the decision to apply a medical retention provision to the applicant as from his entry into service;

| — | order the BEREC to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the BEREC to pay the costs.

---
# C_2012287EN.01002601.xml

| 22.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/26

---

Action brought on 18 July 2012 — European Commission v Italian Republic

(Case C-344/12)

2012/C 287/49

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Grespan and G. Conte, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Italian Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by having failed to adopt, within the periods prescribed, all the measures necessary to implement Decision C(2009) 8112 of 19 November 2009 concerning State aids Nos C 38/A/2004 (ex NN 58/2004) and C 36/B/2006 (ex NN 38/2006) granted by Italy to Alcoa Trasformazioni, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 3 and 4 of that decision and under Article 288 TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by having failed to adopt, within the periods prescribed, all the measures necessary to implement Decision C(2009) 8112 of 19 November 2009 concerning State aids Nos C 38/A/2004 (ex NN 58/2004) and C 36/B/2006 (ex NN 38/2006) granted by Italy to Alcoa Trasformazioni, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 3 and 4 of that decision and under Article 288 TFEU;

| — | order the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The subject-matter of the Commission’s action is the failure by the Italian Republic to give effect to the Commission’s decision relating to unlawful State aid granted to the company Alcoa.

First, pursuant to Article 4 of the decision in question, Italy was required to notify the Commission, by 20 January 2010, of the total amount of the aid to be recovered, of the measures adopted and envisaged for the purpose of complying with the decision and of the documents showing that the beneficiary had been required to repay the aid. Second, in accordance with Article 2, in conjunction with Article 3, of the decision, Italy was required to recover the aid from the beneficiary by 20 March 2010.

As at the date of commencement of this action, the defendant had not yet adopted all the measures necessary to comply with those obligations.

---