alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: "Jim Mallory" <jim@nffs.org>

To: Rochelle Boyd/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 09/24/2010 04:41 PM

Subject: Secondary Aluminum MACT Rule

Hello Rochelle

To reconfirm our discussion on Wednesday of this week, please know that the Non-Ferrous Founders’ Society 

(NFFS) would very much like to work with you as you proceed with your efforts to revisit the Secondary Aluminum 

MACT rule. For your information, NFFS represents both aluminum foundries as well as aluminum ingotmakers.

As I mentioned, NFFS was one of the three metalcasting industry associations that worked with the agency in the

crafting of the definition of clean charge contained in the current Secondary Aluminum MACT as adopted in 2002. 

We were also pleased to work with David Cole, Gary Blais, and Chebryll Edwards at EPA, as well as with Alton 

Peters at RTI, during the development of the Area Source Standards for Aluminum, Copper, and Other Nonferrous 

Foundries (40 CFR Part 63 Subpart ZZZZZZ) that was published by EPA on June 15, 2009.

During the data collection phase of that rulemaking, NFFS facilitated the collection of information on the 

operations and management practices, as well as emissions data, from nine aluminum foundries and nine copper 

(including brass & bronze) foundries. Our participation helped the agency to come to a better understanding of 

the size, nature, and operations of the industry segments affected by and subject to the rulemaking, and to craft a 

rule that fairly and accurately categorize the emissions sources as they exist in the non-ferrous foundry industry. I 

respectfully refer you to the docket for that rulemaking for both the comments and emissions data that were 

submitted by the industry.

As you move forward with your work on the Secondary Aluminum MACT, we believe it will be important to 

continue to distinguish between aluminum foundries – for which the primary material feedstocks are alloyed ingot, 

internal run-around, and customer returns – and secondary aluminum processing facilities that reclaim and 

reprocess scrap from multiple sources. We believe that the Subpart ZZZZZZ rule correctly determined that 

aluminum foundries are NOT significant emissions sources of the HAPs of concern to the EPA under the Clean Air 

Act.

The Society and I will welcome the opportunity to discuss these issues with you in greater detail, as well as to assist

you as needed to provide whatever additional information on our industry you might require.

Sincerely, 

James L. Mallory, Executive Director

Non-Ferrous Founders' Society

1480 Renaissance Drive, Suite #310

Park Ridge, IL 60068

Phone: 847-299-0950

Fax: 847-299-3598

email: jlm@nffs.org
No. 50758.

#### Protests 976041-G, etc., of Gimbel Bros., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that passed upon in *Stephen Rug Mills*v. *United States*(32 C. C. P. A. 110, C. A. D. 293), and by the court’s decision on remand in Abstract 50056. In accordance therewith the protests were sustained as claimed.
# C_2013377EN.01002103.xml

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/21

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 5 November 2013 — Hanschmann v Europol

(Case F-104/12) (1)

1

(Civil service - Europol staff - Non-renewal of a contract - Refusal to grant a contract of an indefinite duration - Annulment by the Tribunal - Compliance with the judgment of the Tribunal)

2013/C 377/49

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ingo Hanschmann (Leipzig, Germany) (represented by: J. Dammingh and N. D. Dane, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Police Office (represented by: D. Neumann and D. El Khoury, agents, B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application to annul Europol’s decision, taken to implement the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 June 2010 in Case F-27/09 Hanschmann v Europol, by which Europol granted the applicant a lump sum by way of compensation for the harm caused to him by the decision annulled by that judgment

Hanschmann

Europol

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of 28 November 2011 by which the European Police Office granted Mr Hanschmann the sum of EUR 13 000 in order to comply with the judgment of the Tribunal of 29 June 2010 in Case F-27/09 Hanschmann v Europol; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of 28 November 2011 by which the European Police Office granted Mr Hanschmann the sum of EUR 13 000 in order to comply with the judgment of the Tribunal of 29 June 2010 in Case F-27/09 Hanschmann v Europol;

| 2. | Orders the European Police Office to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Hanschmann. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Police Office to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Hanschmann.

---

(1)  OJ C 26, 26.01.2013, p. 70.

1

---
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Rick Steen, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Certified Services, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004 fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations
of Certified Services, Inc.



Date: November 18, 2004



/s/ Rick SteenRick SteenActing Chief Financial Officer
# C_2014031EN.01001002.xml

| 1.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 31/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 31/10

---

Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2013 — Eckes-Granini v OHIM — Panini (PANINI)

(Case T-487/12) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark PANINI - Earlier national and Community word marks GRANINI - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2014/C 31/17

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Eckes-Granini Group GmbH (Nieder-Olm, Germany) (represented by: W. Berlit, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: L. Rampini, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Panini SpA (Modène, Italy) (represented by F. Terrano, lawyer)

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 6 September 2012 (Case R 2393/2011-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Eckes-Granini Group GmbH and Panini SpA.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Eckes-Granini Group GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Eckes-Granini Group GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-1601

DORA ADKINS, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

 v. 

FAIRFAX COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD; DANIEL G. STORCK, sued in his 

capacity as Chairman of the Fairfax County School Board, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior 

District Judge. (1:08-cv-00091-JCC-JFA)

Submitted: October 14, 2008 Decided: October 16, 2008 

Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Dora Adkins, Appellant Pro Se. Jill Marie Dennis, HUNTON & 

WILLIAMS, LLP, McLean, Virginia, for Appellees. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Dora Adkins appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing her civil action alleging claims under the Americans 

with Disabilities Act. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. Adkins v. Fairfax County Sch. Bd., No. 

1:08-cv-00091-JCC-JFA (E.D. Va. May 15, 2008). We deny Adkins’ 

motions “to accelerate” as moot and 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. 

AFFIRMED
Before the Second Division,

January 16, 1941

No. 45225.

#### Protests 610269-G, etc., of Abouchar & Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference inthe Registration Statements on Form S-8 (commission file No. 333-93229),and on Form S-3 (commission file No. 333-96901) of ourreport dated March 29, 2007, with respect to the financial statements andfinancial statement schedule for the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005and 2004 of Datalink Corporation which appear in this December 31, 2006Annual Report of Form 10-K.
| /s/ MCGLADREY &  PULLEN, LLP |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|
| Minneapolis, Minnesota                |
| March 29, 2007                   |

 

----
#### Edwardo M. WEATHERFORD v. ALBERTSON'S.

No. 98-C-2700.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 18, 1998.

IN RE: Weatherford, Edwardo M.;— Plaintiffs); Applying for Writ of Certiora-ri and/or Review; Office of Workers’ Compensation Dist. # 6 Number 97-03871; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Number CA98 0153.

Denied.

KIMBALL, J. not on panel; recused.

JOHNSON, J. would grant the writ.
#### A. Newberg & Co. *v.*United States

No. 6143.

Invoices dated Sonneberg, Germany, December 17, 1938, etc.

Certified December 21, 1938, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., January 4, 1939, etc.

Entry No. 781632, etc.

(Decided May 8, 1945)

*Strauss & Hedges (Hadley S. King*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Daniel I. Auster,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Kincheloe, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the court, that the facts and circum--stances relating to thp item of 10 per centum commission or 8 per centum com*420mission in the above-entitled cases, identified on the invoice with the letter A and the initials D. L. of Examiner D. Lefkovitz, are in all material respects the same as the facts and circumstances relating to the item of commission specified In the invoices relating to glass tree ornaments, novelties, and figures, passed upon by the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals in *United States*v. S. *S. Kresge Co. et al.,*26 C. C. P. A. 349, 352, wherein the court held that “A purchasing commission, charged for the handling of the merchandise, is not a proper part of the dutiable value.”

> It is further stipulated and agreed that on the date of exportation of the merchandise involved in the above-entitled cases and identified on the invoices with the letter A in green ink and initials D. L. of Examiner D. Lefkovitz, articles such and similar thereto were freely offered for sale and sold to all purchasers in the principle markets of the country of exportation, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States at the *per se*unit invoice prices, plus 3)4 per centum social assessments for insurance, vacation, and holiday costs, plus packing, as invoiced, and that there was no higher foreign value.

> That the instant appeals to reappraisement are abandoned as to all items not-marked “A” and initialed as aforesaid.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that the record in *United States*v. *S. S. Kresge Co. et al.,*26 C. C. P. A. 349, 352, be incorporated herein, and that the instant appeals to reappraisement are submitted on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the. merchandise identified on the invoices with the letter *“A”*in green ink and the initials D. L. of Examiner D. Lefkovitz, and that such values are the *per se*unit invoice prices, plus *3%*per centum social assessments for insurance, vacation, and holiday costs, plus packing, as invoiced.

The appeals having been abandoned insofar as they relate to all other merchandise, to that extent the appeals are hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

         We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement Nos. 333-80415 and 333-80409 of Factual Data Corp. on Form S-3 and
Registration Statement Nos. 333-92693 and 333-80101 on Form S-8 of our report
dated March 28, 2001, appearing in the December 31, 2002 annual report on Form
10-K of Factual Data Corp., for the year ended December 31, 2000.

                                   /s/  Ehrhardt Keefe Steiner & Hottman PC
                                        Ehrhardt Keefe Steiner & Hottman PC

March 28, 2003
Denver, Colorado
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL D. NUNLEY, II,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

FRED FOULK, Warden,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 12-16390

D.C. No. 2:11-cv-00607-KJMEFB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 10, 2014** 

San Francisco, California

Before: BEA, IKUTA, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

 Michael Nunley, II, appeals the dismissal of his habeas corpus petition. We

have jurisdiction over this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and affirm. 

1. A federal habeas court may not grant relief to a state prisoner on a claim

already “adjudicated on the merits in State court,” unless the adjudication “resulted

FILED

SEP 12 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly

established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). Nunley argues that his Sixth Amendment claim was not

adjudicated on the merits by the California Court of Appeal. We must presume,

however, that the Court of Appeal adjudicated that claim on the merits even though

it did not directly address it. Johnson v. Williams, 133 S. Ct. 1088, 1096 (2013). This

“presumption is a strong one that may be rebutted only in unusual circumstances,”

which are not presented here. Id.

2. A state court decision does not contradict or unreasonably apply clearly

established federal law if no Supreme Court holding squarely addresses a defendant’s

claim. Wright v. Van Patten, 552 U.S. 120, 126 (2008). No Supreme Court opinion

holds that where, as here, a defendant voluntarily testifies that his former attorney did

not notify him of forensic test results, the Sixth Amendment forbids the attorney from

being compelled to testify about that issue. There is no clearly established federal law

contradicting the California appellate court’s conclusion that Nunley waived any

attorney-client privilege as to whether his former counsel had informed him of the

DNA test results. 

AFFIRMED.

2
#### Weidmann Silk Dyeing Company, respondent, *v.*East Jersey Water Company et al., appellants.

[Argued June 20th, 1918.

Decided November 18th, 1918.]

It was not meant by rule 131 of the supreme court (edition of 1913), applicable to the court of errors and appeals by rule 147, to compel the appellate court to pass on every question raised on the appeal.

*542On appeal from a decree of the court of chancery, reported in *88 N. J. Eq. 397.*

*Mr. John W. Harding (Messrs. Griggs & Harding),*for the respondent.

*Mr. John B. Humphreys*and *Mr. Gilbert Collins,*for the appellants.

The opinion of the court was delivered by '

Swayze, J.

The opinion of the chancellor sufficiently vindicates the result he reached. One expression in the opinion may lead to misapprehension, and it is important enough to call for remark. In speaking of the effect of the decision in *A. & S. Silk Dyeing Co.*v. *East Jersey Water Co., 88 N. J. Law 273,*he says that under the rule of the supreme court (now rule 131, edition of 1913) no questions are open for litigation upon a retrial except those on which the decision of the trial court was found to be wrong. The rule is limited in any event to questions that are separable, and, hence, it is necessary for the appellate court to adjudge that the questions are separable, if it means to limit the scope of the retrial. What the judgment was in the case cited does not appear, and the opinion only shows that the judgment was to be reversed and a new trial ordered. This result would necessarily follow if any fatal error was found as there was in that case. Such a reversal, however, does not necessarily conclude all other questions. This court on finding- a fatal error might or might not pass on other questions involved in the case. It was not meant by rule 131 to compel the appellate court to pass on every question raised on the appeal. The question does not arise now since we agree that the facts conceded in the bill and answer entitle the complainants to a decree, unless it is to be deprived of relief on the theory that it does not come into court with clean hands. We cannot so hold. The fact that the complainant may have heretofore made an unreasonable use of the water and polluted it in such use does not prevent it from now vindicating *543its property rights. Those rights it has not lost even though it has in the past violated the criminal law by creating a public nuisance. Even a criminal would not be an outlaw.

We are bound to assume that it will hereafter assert its legal rights in a lawful way, and in that assertion it is entitled to protection.

The decree must be affirmed, with costs.

*For affirmance*— The Chief-Justice, Swayze, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Kalisch, Black, White, Heppenheimer, Taylor, Gardner — 12.

*For reversal*— None.
No. 46450.

#### Protest 974379-G-11494 of George Borgfeldt Corp. (New Orleans).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 45502 the protest was sustained.
Case Ho. 10,035.

#### NATIONAL BANK v. DODGE.

[The case reported under above title in 25 Int Bev. Bee. 304, is the same as Case No. 10,-053.] _
# C_2012209EN.01000901.xml

| 14.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/9

---

Action brought on 9 May 2012 — Nuna International v OHIM — Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp (nuna)

(Case T-195/12)

2012/C 209/14

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Nuna International BV (Erp, Netherlands) (represented by: A. Alpera Plazas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. (Bremen, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 February 2012 in case R 476/2011-1; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 February 2012 in case R 476/2011-1; and

| — | Grant the contested community trade mark application for all the goods designated in the application. |
| --- | --- |

—

Grant the contested community trade mark application for all the goods designated in the application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘nuna’, for goods in classes 12, 18, 20, 21, 25 and 28 — Community trade mark application No 6239743

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark application No 6218879 of the word mark ‘NANU’; Community trade mark No 6218945 of the word mark ‘NANA’ for goods and services in classes 4, 6, 8, 11, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 26, 28, 30, 34 and 35; Community trade mark No 6217814 of the word mark ‘NANU-NANA’ for goods and services in classes 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 28 and 35; German trade mark No 36647710 of the word mark ‘NANU’; German trade mark No 39804075 of the word mark ‘NANA’; German trade mark No 1054703 of the word mark ‘NANU-NANA’; International trade mark registration No 557176 of the word mark ‘NANU-NANA’

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision, upheld the opposition and rejected the community trade mark application

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009

Pleas in law:

---
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132116 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: 132116 

 COA: 261514 

Oakland CC: 03-190712-FH 

RICARDO ALEXANDER BUCCILLI,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 27, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t1120 

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. 

November 29, 2006 

 Clerk