alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2012126EN.01002401.xml

| 28.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 126/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 126/24

---

Action brought on 7 March 2012 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-111/12)

2012/C 126/46

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul Commission Decision C(2011) 9990 of 22 December 2011 reducing the assistance from the Cohesion Fund granted to the following projects: ‘Management of waste by the Autonomous Community of Extremadura — 2001’ (CCI No 2001.ES.16.C.PE.043); ‘Drainage and water supply in the Douro river basin — 2001’ (CCI No 2000.ES.16.C.PE.070); ‘Management of Waste by the Autonomous Community of Valencia — 2011 — Group II’ (CCI No 2001.ES.16.C.PE.026); and ‘Waste-water disposal and treatment in Bierzo Bajo’ (CCI No. 2000.ES.16.C.PE.036); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Commission Decision C(2011) 9990 of 22 December 2011 reducing the assistance from the Cohesion Fund granted to the following projects: ‘Management of waste by the Autonomous Community of Extremadura — 2001’ (CCI No 2001.ES.16.C.PE.043); ‘Drainage and water supply in the Douro river basin — 2001’ (CCI No 2000.ES.16.C.PE.070); ‘Management of Waste by the Autonomous Community of Valencia — 2011 — Group II’ (CCI No 2001.ES.16.C.PE.026); and ‘Waste-water disposal and treatment in Bierzo Bajo’ (CCI No. 2000.ES.16.C.PE.036);

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the applicant relies on pleas in law essentially identical to those already raised in Case T-109/12 Spain v Commission.

Spain

Commission

The applicant alleges, in particular, a failure to state reasons with regard to the application of the principle of proportionality under Article H.2 of Annex II of Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 of 16 May 1994 establishing a Cohesion Fund (OJ 1994 L 130 p. 1), since the Commission simply referred to the document ‘Guidelines for determining financial corrections to [be made to expenditure cofinanced by the structural funds or the cohesion fund for non-compliance with the rules on] public procurement’ — presented to the Member States at the Coordination Committee of the Funds of 28 November 2007 — even though that document does not analyse the reasons which could justify setting the flat-rate correction percentages set out therein.

---
No. 45308.

#### Protests 997605-G, etc., of Antonio Pellino et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Jesse McCRAY, Defendant/Appellant.

No. 74210.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

June 22, 1999.

David Simpson, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Breck K. Burgess, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before HOFF, P.J. and GARY M. GAERTNER, J. and RHODES RUSSELL, J.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jesse McCray (Defendant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment and sentence entered following a jury verdict convicting him of felony resisting arrest in violation of Section 575.150 RSMo Cum.Supp.1996. Defendant argues the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal on the charge of felony resisting arrest because: (1) the police officer never testified for what offense he was attempting to arrest Defendant; and (2) State presented no evidence Defendant committed the felony of first degree *tampering before he*resisted the police officer’s arrest. The trial court sentenced Defendant as a prior and persistent offender to ten years imprisonment.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claims of error to be *584without merit. No error of law appears. Further, there is sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury might have found Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. *State v. Silvey,*894 S.W.2d 662, 673 (Mo. banc 1995). An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no jurisprudential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 80.25(b).

The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 57 (Wednesday, March 25, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 15775]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06815]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Hanford

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental 
Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Hanford. The Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that 
public notice of this meeting be announced in the Federal Register.

DATES: 

Wednesday, April 8, 2015--12:00 p.m.-8:00 p.m.
Thursday, April 9, 2015--8:30 a.m.-3:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Red Lion Hanford House, 802 George Washington Way, Richland, 
WA 99352.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristen Skopeck, Federal Coordinator, 
Department of Energy Richland Operations Office, 825 Jadwin Avenue, 
P.O. Box 550, A7-75, Richland, WA 99352; Phone: (509) 376-5803; or 
Email: kristen.skopeck@rl.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make 
recommendations to DOE-EM and site management in the areas of 
environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities.
    Tentative Agenda:

 Central Plateau Inner Area Cleanup Guidelines
 Hanford Advisory Board Committee Reports
 Tri-Party Agreement Agencies' Updates
 Board Business

    Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. The EM 
SSAB, Hanford, welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory 
committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons 
with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special 
accommodations due to a disability, please contact Kristen Skopeck at 
least seven days in advance of the meeting at the phone number listed 
above. Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or 
after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements 
pertaining to agenda items should contact Kristen Skopeck at the 
address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be received 
five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to 
include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal 
Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will 
facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make 
public comments will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present 
their comments.
    Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing or calling Kristen 
Skopeck's office at the address or phone number listed above. Minutes 
will also be available at the following Web site: http://www.hanford.gov/page.cfm/hab.

    Issued at Washington, DC, on March 18, 2015.
LaTanya R. Butler,
Deputy Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2015-06815 Filed 3-24-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```
No. 45303.

#### Protests 37350-K, etc., of Chan Kee Co. et al. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel certain items were held entitled to free entry under paragraph 1669 and other items dutiable at 10 percent under paragraph 34 as claimed. *Oy Wo Tong*v. *United States*(C. D. 372) followed.
No. 65824.

#### Ross Products, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 60/27661, 60/30117, and 60/27264 (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of dish mops similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 64603, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Women Workers and Their Dependents

              																	United States. Women's Bureau					 and 	Pidgeon, Mary Elizabeth. 						*Women Workers and Their Dependents : Women's Bureau Bulletin, No. 239*,												Washington: 								Govt. Print. Off., 										1952,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/5511,			accessed on September 25, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 96 (Friday, May 18, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 28023]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9588]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD


Meeting

AGENCY: Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board 
(Access Board) has scheduled its regular business meetings to take 
place in Washington, DC., Wednesday through Friday, May 30-June 1, 
2007, at the times and location noted below.

DATES: The schedule of events is as follows:

Wednesday, May 30, 2007

10:30 a.m.-Noon--Electronic and Information Technology Ad Hoc 
Committee.
1:30 p.m.-3:30 p.m.--Briefing on Outdoor Developed Areas Proposed Rule 
(Closed Session).
3:30 p.m.-5 p.m.--Passenger Vessels Guidelines Ad Hoc Committee (Closed 
Session).

Thursday, May 31, 2007

9 a.m.-10:30 a.m.--Standard Taxi Demonstration.
10:30 a.m.-Noon--Briefing on Public Rights-of-Way Rulemaking (Closed 
Session).
1:30 p.m.-5 p.m.--Transportation Vehicle Guidelines Ad Hoc Committee 
(Closed Session).

Friday, June 1, 2007

9 a.m.-10:30 a.m.--Planning and Evaluation Committee.
10:30 a.m.-Noon--Executive Committee.
1:30 p.m.-3 p.m.--Board Meeting.

ADDRESSES: All meetings will be held at The Madison Hotel, 1177 15th 
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information regarding the 
meetings, please contact Lawrence W. Roffee, Executive Director, (202) 
272-0001 (voice) and (202) 272-0082 (TTY).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: At the Board meeting, the Access Board will 
consider the following agenda items:
    <bullet> Approval of the March 2007 draft Board Meeting Minutes.
    <bullet> Planning and Evaluation Committee Report.
    <bullet> Executive Committee Report.
    <bullet> Electronic and Information Technology Ad Hoc Committee 
Report.
    <bullet> Passenger Vessels Guidelines Ad Hoc Committee Report.
    <bullet> Transportation Vehicle Guidelines Ad Hoc Committee Report.
    All meetings are accessible to persons with disabilities. An 
assistive listening system, computer assisted real-time transcription 
(CART), and sign language interpreters will be available at the Board 
meetings. Persons attending Board meetings are requested to refrain 
from using perfume, cologne, and other fragrances for the comfort of 
other participants.

Lawrence Roffee,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. E7-9588 Filed 5-17-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8150-01-P
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS  PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

I,
John A. Saxton, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of The Sheridan Group, Inc.;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))
for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



Date: March 29, 2011

By:

/s/ JOHN A. SAXTON John A. Saxton President and Chief Executive Officer


---



QuickLinks
Before the Second Division,

October 14, 1943

No. 48864.

#### Protest 990823-G of Absorbo Beer Pad Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

The record established that the merchandise is the same as that passed upon in *Absorbo Beer Pad Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(10 Cust. Ct. 176, C. D. 748), the record in which case'was incorporated herein. In accordance therewith the pulpboard was hold dutiable at 10 percent under paragraph 1402 as not embossed, decorated, or ornamented in any manner. The protest was therefore sustained.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of NUEVO FINANCIAL CENTER, INC. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jose
Araque, President, Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (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 result of operations
            of the Company.


/s/ Jose Araque
---------------------------------------
Jose Araque
President, Principal Financial Officer,
Principal Accounting Officer,
Chairman of the Board of Directors

August 15, 2006
Exhibit
      10.9

     

    
      CHINA
        ASCENDANCE ACQUISITION CORPORATION

       

      

        
          	 	
                  _____________
                    ___, 2008

                


        

      

      


      China
        Ascendance Management Corporation

      108
        North
        4th Ring East Road

      QianHe
        JiaYuan

      Building
        9, Suite 607

      Beijing,
        100029, China

      


      Gentlemen:

      


      This
        letter will confirm our agreement that, commencing on the effective date
        (“Effective Date”) of the registration statement for the initial public offering
        (“IPO”) of the securities of China Ascendance Acquisition Corporation (“CAAC”)
        and continuing until the earlier of the consummation by CAAC of a “Business
        Combination” (as described in CAAC’s IPO prospectus) or CAAC’s liquidation (the
“Termination Date”), China Ascendance Management Corp. shall make available to
        CAAC certain office and secretarial services as may be required by CAAC from
        time to time, situated at 108
        North
        4th Ring East Road, QianHe JiaYuan, Building 9, Suite 607, Beijing, 100029,
        China.
        In
        exchange therefore, CAAC shall pay China Ascendance Management Corporation
        the
        sum of $7,500 per month on the Effective Date and continuing monthly thereafter
        until the Termination Date.

       

      
        	 	Very truly
                yours, 
	 	 	 
	 	
                CHINA
                  ASCENDANCE 

                ACQUISITION
                  CORPORATION

              
	 
 	 
 	 
 
	
              	By:  	 
	 	
                
Name:  
	 	Title 


      

       

      AGREED
        TO
        AND ACCEPTED BY:

      


      CHINA
        ASCENDANCE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION

      


      


      By: _________________

      Name:
        

      Title:
# C_2015171EN.01000502.xml

| 26.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Ambisig — Ambiente e Sistemas de Informação Geográfica SA v Nersant — Associação Empresarial da Região de Santarém, Núcleo Inicial — Formação e Consultoria Lda

(Case C-601/13) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2004/18/EC - Public service contracts - Conduct of the procedure - Contract award criteria - Qualifications of the staff assigned to performance of the contract))

(2015/C 171/07)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ambisig — Ambiente e Sistemas de Informação Geográfica SA

Applicant:

Defendants: Nersant — Associação Empresarial da Região de Santarém, Núcleo Inicial — Formação e Consultoria Lda

Defendants:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

With regard to procurement contracts for the provision of services of an intellectual nature, training and consultancy, Article 53(1)(a) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts does not preclude the contracting authority from using a criterion enabling evaluation of the teams specifically put forward by the tenderers for the performance of the contract and which takes into consideration the composition of the team and the experience and academic and professional background of the team members.

---

(1)  OJ C 39, 8.2.2014.

1

---
My name is Joel Coggins I am an electrical quality control manager on large construction sites. I fly a DJI

phantom view plus on site to do quality inspections and site layout. I use the drone like any other tool in my trade. My drone has software that wil l not allow me to fly in restricted air space. I do not charge the companies for any of the photos that I take. I am asking for an exemption to continue using this in my
work.
Before the Third Division,

December 14, 1950

No. 54987.

#### Damascus Trading Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 141770-K, etc. (New York).

*346Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
#### R. H. Macy & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

No. 6542.

Entry No. 754218.

Invoice dated London, England, March 1, 1946.

Certified March 1, 1946.

Entered at New York, N. Y., April 23, 1946.

(Decided November 22, 1946)

*John B. Rafter*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Cline, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

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 here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6089

KEVIN HERRIOTT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN, MCCORMICK CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Greenville. David C. Norton, District Judge. (6:20-cv-03336-DCN)

Submitted: May 25, 2021 Decided: May 28, 2021

Before DIAZ and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kevin Herriott, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kevin Herriott seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Herriott’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

petition for lack of exhaustion. 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). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. 

Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 

U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Herriott 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 legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED