alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013038EN.01002702.xml

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/27

---

Order of the General Court of 14 December 2012 — Elegant Target Development and Others v Council

(Case T-90/12) (1)

1

2013/C 38/50

Language of the case: English

The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 118, 21.4.2012.

1

---
Order entered October 29, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01376-CR

No. 05-12-01377-CR

No. 05-12-01378-CR

No. 05-12-01448-CR

JESSE C. CASTILLO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F12-40677-W, F11-40913-W, F11-40914-W, F11-40924-W

ORDER

On May 31, 2013, we ordered the Dallas County District Clerk to prepare and file 

supplemental clerk’s records containing a detailed itemization of the costs assessed in these cases, 

including but not limited to, specific court costs, fees, and court appointed attorney fees. On June 4, 

2013, the Dallas County District Clerk filed supplemental clerk’s records. However, the detail

itemization of costs included in the supplemental records does not comply with the Texas Code of 

Criminal Procedure. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. arts. 103.001, 103.006 (West 2006). 

Accordingly, we ORDER the Dallas County District Clerk to file, within seven days of the 

date of this order, second supplemental clerk’s records that contain a detailed itemization of the costs 
assessed in these cases that comply with articles 103.001 and 103.006 of the Texas Code of Criminal 

Procedure. See id. art. 103.001 (“A cost is not payable by the person charged with the cost until a 

written bill is produced or is ready to be produced, containing the items of cost, signed by the officer 

who charged the cost or the officer who is entitled to receive payment for the cost.”) emphasis 

added); 103.006 (“If a criminal action or proceeding . . . is appealed, an officer of the court shall 

certify and sign a bill of costs stating the costs that have accrued and send the bill of cost to the court 

to which the action or proceeding is . . . appealed) (emphasis added).

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 13.1

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN AND PRESIDENT
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the annual report
of NB Finance, Ltd. (the Company), for the period ended December 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Form 20-F on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Martin Ouellet, President of the Company, certify 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 results of operations of the
Company.

| | /s/ Martin Ouellet
Martin Ouellet
President
| | -------------------------------------------

Dated:       June 20, 2005

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company, and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.

---
No. 45293.

#### Protests 982691-G, etc., of Lamborn & Co. et al. (Cleveland, etc.).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
#### Bernard Thomas BLACKWELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charles ANDERSON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 81-1274.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Argued Oct. 9, 1981.

Decided Nov. 23, 1981.

Certiorari Denied Feb. 22, 1982.

See 102 S.Ct. 1446.

*1050Carl Ziemba, Detroit, Mich., for petitioner-appellant.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen. of Michigan, Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Thomas L. Casey, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lansing, Mich., for respondent-appellee.

Before EDWARDS, Chief Circuit Judge, KENNEDY, Circuit Judge, and CECIL, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner in this case appeals from a judgment denying his habeas corpus petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1976). Petitioner had been convicted of first degree murder and possessing a firearm during the commission of a felony. He seems to contend that at best the proofs presented by the government at his trial would serve to sustain a conviction for second degree murder.

Our review of this record, however, shows that there is more than ample evidence for the jury to find the following facts. On the date in question defendant went to the apartment of one Charles Thompson at 3 a. m. with three other men. Defendant kicked the door in. One of the other men, Pippin, shot Thompson three times. Defendant then told Pippin, the man who had shot Thompson, to make sure that Thompson was dead. Thereupon Pippin went back and shot Thompson three more times.

We believe that the jury could appropriately have found the necessary intent and participation in this murder to support the first degree murder conviction. Further, we find in this record no prosecutorial abuse, ineffective assistance of counsel, or erroneous ruling by the trial judge which served to deprive appellant of any federal constitutional right.

The judgment of the District Court is therefore affirmed.
**Exhibit32.2**

**UNIVERSAL COMPRESSION, INC.**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with theReport of Universal Compression, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for theperiod ending December 31, 2006 (the “Report”), I, Stephen A. Snider, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to myknowledge:

(1)               TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)               Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| /s/ STEPHEN A. SNIDER   |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Stephen A. Snider       |
| Chief Executive Officer |
| February 28, 2007       |

 

 

In connection with theReport of Universal Compression, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for theperiod ending December 31, 2006 (the “Report”), I, J. Michael Anderson, ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to myknowledge:

(1)               TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)               Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| /s/  J. MICHAEL ANDERSON |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
| J. Michael Anderson      |
| Chief Financial Officer  |
| February 28, 2007        |

 

1

----
Before the Second Division,

October 8, 1941

No. 46409.

#### Protest 916537-G of Spear & Jackson (U. S.), Inc. (Seattle).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

The only witness was the examiner who passed the merchandise and who was called by the plaintiff. He testified that the merchandise was of the same character and description as that covered by T. D. 49082. The court was of the opinion that inhere-was nothing in the record which would warrant it in holding the merchandise dutiable under paragraph 304. The protest was therefore overruled.
Case No. 5,590.

#### GOODYEAR DENTAL VULCANITE CO. et al. v. FLAGG.

[9 O. G. 153.]

Circuit Court, S. D. New York.

1876.

Patents — Vulcanized Rubber — What is an Infringement THEREOF.

1. The courts have determined that the construction to be given plaintiff's patent was India rubber “and the compounds commonly employed therewith reduced to a soft plastic state, capable of vulcanization, and subsequently vulcanized.”

2. In the process described by defendant, he does not use India-rubber, or any substance capable of vulcanization. The substance used by him is rendered plastic, and not hardened by heat.

[This was a bill in equity by the Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Company and others against Eben M. Flagg.]

E. N. Dickerson and B. F. Lee, for plaintiffs.

W. D. Shipman, C. A. Seward, and E. Luther Hamilton, for defendant.

BLATCHFORD, District Judge.

I do not find that any decision has been made in regard to the plaintiff’s patent, which gives to it such a construction as necessarily includes the process and substance used by the defendant In the Gardiner Case the defendant did not compound India-rubber with sulphur, but he compounded India-rubber with iodine, and he employed heat to harden the rubber. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Gardiner [Case No. 5,591]. In the Smith Case the view of the court was that the material to be used under the plaintiff’s patent in carrying out the invention patented was to be India-rubber, “and the compounds commonly employed therewith reduced to a soft plastic condition, capable of vulcanization and subsequently vulcanized.” Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Smith [Id. 5,598]. It appears from the description of the process used by the defendant in this suit that he does not use India-rubber or any substance capable of vulcanization; that the substance he uses is one which is rendered plastic by heat, and is not hardened by heat; that heat' is used in the process to soften the substance and render it plastic, and not to harden it, and that the substance, after being molded, is hardened by being coojed. It is not sufficiently clear that this process is embraced in the claim of the plaintiff’s patent to warrant the granting of an injunction until one is awarded as the result of a decree for the plaintiffs on final hearing.
FACTOR AERIAL IMAGERY UAV SPECIFICATION SHEET

Factor Aerial Imagery UAV Components list.

Air Frame 

DJI S1000

http://www.dji.com/product/spreading-wings-s1000

Configuration: Octocopter

Take Off Weight: 6Kg ~ 11Kg / 13.2lbs ~ 24.25lbs

Aircraft Weight: 4.2Kg / 9.25lbs

Diagonal Width: 1045mm/41.14"

Motors: 8x DJI 4114 400kv

ESC: 40A Integrated

Landing Gear: Retractable

Arms: Carbon Fiber Booms, Foldable

Propellers: 1552 High Performance, Foldable

Plug Types: XT150 Flight Battery, XT60 Electronics

Manufactured by: DJI
FACTOR AERIAL IMAGERY UAV SPECIFICATION SHEET

Flight Control System

DJI A2,IOSD Mini on screen display, DJI GPS Puck. LED battery low V warning/Satellite indicator.

DJI GPS Puck. LED battery low V warning/Satellite indicator.
FACTOR AERIAL IMAGERY UAV SPECIFICATION SHEET

RC Controllers:
FACTOR AERIAL IMAGERY UAV SPECIFICATION SHEET

2 Fatuba 14 Sg controllers, binded for Pilot & Camera Operator. Communicates RX-TX for flight 

control and TX 5.8GHZ for Pilot camera.

Motors
FACTOR AERIAL IMAGERY UAV SPECIFICATION SHEET

Stator Size 41×14mm. kV 400rpm/V Max Power 500W. ESC 40a integrated

Props

Foldable Propeller (1552/1552R)

Material High strength performance engineered plastics

Size 15×5.2inch

Batteries

Foxtech 6s 22,000 mAh Lipo 25c-50c
FACTOR AERIAL IMAGERY UAV SPECIFICATION SHEET

Gimbal

z-15 Zenmuse

Onboard Camera Equipment:

High DefinitionCanon 5D Mark lll with EF 85mm f/1.2L ll USM lens

CAMERA- http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/slr_cameras/eos_5d_mark_iii

LENS- http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_85mm_f_1_2l_ii_usm

Gopro 4 Black

http://shop.gopro.com/hero4/hero4-black/CHDHX-401.html
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

# Fire Warden Appreciation Day

By Natalie SkeltonDLA Aviation Public Affairs Office

                Richmond, Va.  –              
Defense Logistics Agency Installation Management Richmond’s Fire Prevention staff showed their appreciation during their quarterly training session June 13 with a luncheon and tour of the fire station to over 30 Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia, employees who serve as fire wardens. Fire wardens have the responsibility to ensure their work areas remain safe. They serve as the “eyes and ears” of the fire department by playing an important role: ensuring their areas are free from potential fire hazards, assisting in evacuations and personnel accountability during an emergency. Fire wardens provide pertinent information to arriving fire department personnel once they arrive on the scene of an incident.

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

Defense Supply Center RichmondVirginiaDLA Installation Management Richmondfire preventionPeople and CultureStrong PartnershipsFire Warden Appreciation Day
May 25, 1944

No. 49447.

Suit 4462.

#### United *States*v. *Meyer & Lange.*

C. D. 802 affirmed. C. A. D. 277.
No. 42103.

#### Protests 898924-G, etc., of Rome Importing Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

On the authority of Abstract 40880 the protests were sustained.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION









<PAGE>



                                  Exhibit 32.2

                     CERTIFICATION OF DISCLOSURE 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 Infinity  Capital Group,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period  ending  September 30, 2008 as filed with
the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report") I,
Theodore A. Greenberg,  Principal  Accounting Officer,  Chief Financial Officer,
Chief Investment Officer and Secretary of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
USC section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act
of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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 results of operations of the
Company.


Dated: November 14, 2008


/s/Theodore A. Greenberg
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Position: Principal Accounting Officer, Chief Financial Officer,
Chief Investment Officer and Secretary


This  certification  accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  be deemed  filed by the  Company  for  purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
No. 96-7794.

#### Robinson *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 23

                         Consent of Independent Auditors

The Board of Directors
Hudson River Bancorp, Inc.

We consent to incorporation by reference in the following registration
statements:

   File No. 333-58615 on Form S-8,
   File No. 333-94567 on Form S-8, and
   File No. 333-94571 on Form S-8

of Hudson River Bancorp, Inc. of our report dated May 3, 2002, relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of Hudson River Bancorp, Inc. and subsidiaries as of
March 31, 2002 and 2001, and the related consolidated income statements,
statements of changes in shareholders' equity and cash flows for each of the
years in the three-year period ended March 31, 2002, which report appears in the
March 31, 2002 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Hudson River Bancorp, Inc.


/s/ KPMG LLP

Albany, New York
June 26, 2002
Before the Second Division,

January 18, 1939

No. 40466.

#### Protests 767251-G, etc., of Alfred Kohlberg, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

This is in correction of an error as to inyoices. and entries covered by the earlier decision.
ASIAN
      POINT INVESTMENT LIMITED

    The
      Creque Building, 216 Main Street,

    Road
      Town, Tortola, British Virgin Islands.

    


    Date:
      Mar
      31, 2005

    


    YIN
      KEE
      WEAVING FACTORY LIMITED

    Flat
      I J
& K, 13/F., Superluck Industrial Centre,

    (Phase
      2)
      57 Sha Tsui Road,

    Tsuen
      Wan, N.T.,

    Hong
      Kong.

    


    Dear
      Sir/Mdm,

    


    RE:
      APPOINTMENT OF COMPANY CONSULTANT

    


    We
      have
      the pleasure to inform you that appointed as consultant of our company, Asian
      Point Investment Limited details as follows:-

     

    
      	(1)
              Your services will be included: 	
              (i)
                Management Service

            
	 	(ii)
              Merchandising Consultancy (as buyer)
	 	(iii)
              Quality Checking & Approval


    

      

    (2)
      Service Charges: $113,135
      USD (HK$884,000.00)

     

    (3)
      Appointed Period: from
      Apr
      01, 2005 to March 31, 2006

     

    (4)
      Payment Term: Partial
      Payment

    


    The
      above
      charge will be mutually agreed by the two parties concerned.

    


    Kindly
      indicate your acceptance of the above items by signing and return the duplicated
      of this letter.

    


    Yours
      truly,

     

    
      	For
              and on behalf
              of Asian Point Investment Ltd.	 	 	
              Received
                & Confirmed by Yin Kee Weaving Factory Ltd.

            
	 	 	 	 
	Ms.
              Szeto Mei Ling	 	 	Mr.
              Fan Kwok
              Wing
	
            	 	 	
            
	Director	 	 	Director
#### Albert G. COUVILLION v. Grace W. Guidry wife of/and James W. GUIDRY, and State Farm Fire and Casualty Insurance Company.

No. 98-C-2733.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 18, 1998.

IN RE: Couvillion, Albert G.; — Plaintiffs); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review; Parish of Jefferson 24th Judicial District Court Div. “E” Number 471-686; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, Number 98-CA-0268.

Denied.

VICTORY, J. not on panel.
Before the Second Division,

January 31, 1940

No. 43157.

#### Protests 963969-G, etc., of Abouchar & Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

On the authority of *Lamborn*v. *United States*(27 C. C. P. A. 46, C. A. D. 60) the protests were dismissed.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SHOUQIN SONG,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 14-70128

Agency No. A087-864-135

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 26, 2016**

Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Shouqin Song, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration 

judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and 

relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 

 

* 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).

FILED

APR 29 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 14-70128

8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo due process challenges, Zetino v. Holder, 

622 F.3d 1007, 1011-12 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal citation omitted), and review for 

substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards 

governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act, 

Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition 

for review.

We reject Song’s due process contention regarding her medical record. See 

Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1046 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and substantial 

prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination

based on inconsistencies between Song’s testimony and asylum declaration 

regarding when she learned of her employer’s corruption and whether she received 

unemployment benefits. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility 

determination was reasonable under the “totality of the circumstances”). Song’s 

explanations for the inconsistencies do not compel the contrary result. See Lata v. 

INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Further, substantial evidence supports 

the agency’s finding that Song’s corroborative evidence does not independently 

support her claim for relief. See Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 
3 14-70128

2014). In the absence of credible testimony, Song’s asylum and withholding of 

removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Finally, Song’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same 

testimony the agency found not credible, and the record does not otherwise compel

the conclusion that it is more likely than not she would be tortured if returned to 

China. See id. at 1156-57.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Before the Second Division,

February 1, 1940

No. 43173.

#### Protests 279873-G, etc., of Elias Mallouk & Bro. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

From the evidence it was found that certain items consist of Venice lace the same as that involved in *Littwitz*v. *United States*(3 Cust. Ct. 123, C. D. 217). The claim at 75 percent under paragraph 1430 was therefore sustained.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

CARL GAITHER,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 291 MAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 3rd day of September, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of

Appeal is DENIED.