alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
33675.

#### MEREDITH v. MEREDITH.

Marshall, Justice.

The appellee husband filed a complaint for divorce on the ground that the parties’ marriage was irretrievably broken. The appellant wife answered, denying that the marriage was irretrievably broken. However, she counterclaimed for divorce on the ground of cruel treatment by the husband. The husband filed a motion for summary judgment, with a supporting affidavit, on the question of divorce on the no fault ground. The wife moved to deny the husband’s motion for summary judgment, and she filed a counter-affidavit in which she alleged that the *64marriage was not irretrievably broken and that there were prospects for a reconciliation. The trial court granted the husband’s motion for summary judgment and the wife appeals.

Submitted June 19, 1978

Decided September 6, 1978.

*Andrew J. Hill, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Smith & Shiver, Truett Smith, Thomas L. Hodges, III,*for appellee.

Under *Dickson v. Dickson,*238 Ga. 672 (235 SE2d 479) (1977) and prior cases, a no fault divorce judgment is properly granted, either on the pleadings or by summary judgment, where one party seeks a divorce on the ground that the marriage is irretrievably broken and the other party counterclaims for divorce on another ground. Notwithstanding the allegations in the appellant’s answer and counter-affidavit that the parties’ marriage was not irretrievably broken, the prayer for a divorce in her counterclaim authorized the trial court to grant the husband a no fault divorce on his motion for summary judgment.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,039,594
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,238,505
<ALLOWANCES>                                   277,985
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,002,889
<PP&E>                                       5,590,996
<DEPRECIATION>                                 680,992
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              33,290,279
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,064,769
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           957
<OTHER-SE>                                  19,015,113
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                33,290,279
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            25,690,672
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               26,764,768
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,101
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             657,455
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,733,652)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (304,562)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,429,090)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.17)
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2


                          SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

                  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 Form 10-QSB of C&D Production  Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period  ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Tricia A. Willis,
Chief Financial 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
based on my knowledge:

     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.


Date:  August 13, 2003


/s/ TRICIA A. WILLIS
______________________________________
Tricia A. Willis
Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer,
Director




A SIGNED  ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN  STATEMENT  REQUIRED BY SECTION 906, OR OTHER
DOCUMENT AUTHENTICATING, ACKNOWLEDGING, OR OTHERWISE ADOPTING THE SIGNATURE THAT
APPEARS IN TYPED FORM WITHIN THE  ELECTRONIC  VERSION OF THIS WRITTEN  STATEMENT
REQUIRED BY SECTION 906, HAS BEEN  PROVIDED TO C&D  PRODUCTION  INC. AND WILL BE
RETAINED BY C&D  PRODUCTION  INC. AND FURNISHED TO THE  SECURITIES  AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
(V. D. 77)

#### George Scherr & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 712239.

(Decided May 22, 1958)

*John D. Rode*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

This is a valuation proceeding which arose by reason of a judgment rendered by the second division of this court in the case of *Manufacturers Steel Corp. et al.*v. *United States,*36 Cust. Ct. 482, Abstract 60048.

The cause of action, having been formally abandoned, is dismissed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
# C_2013046EN.01002302.xml

| 16.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 46/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 46/23

---

Action brought on 19 December 2012 — Beninca v Commission

(Case T-561/12)

2013/C 46/42

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Jürgen Beninca (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: C. Zschocke, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul Commission’s Decision of 9 October 2012, refusing access to a document produced in the framework of merger proceedings (Case COMP/M.6166 — NYSE Euronext/Deutsche Börse); and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Commission’s Decision of 9 October 2012, refusing access to a document produced in the framework of merger proceedings (Case COMP/M.6166 — NYSE Euronext/Deutsche Börse); and

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that none of the exceptions listed in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) applies. This is in particular correct for the exceptions referred to by the Commission in the Decision, namely Article 4(3), second subparagraph and Article 4(2), first indent, of the said regulation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that none of the exceptions listed in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) applies. This is in particular correct for the exceptions referred to by the Commission in the Decision, namely Article 4(3), second subparagraph and Article 4(2), first indent, of the said regulation.

1

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that if any of these exceptions would apply, the Decision fails to properly consider whether at least partial (or redacted) access to the requested document is possible pursuant to Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that if any of these exceptions would apply, the Decision fails to properly consider whether at least partial (or redacted) access to the requested document is possible pursuant to Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the applicant has a right to access to the requested document because of an overriding public interest in making the document in question available, pursuant to Articles 4(2) and 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the applicant has a right to access to the requested document because of an overriding public interest in making the document in question available, pursuant to Articles 4(2) and 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43)

1

---
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

# Combat metals: 'The Modern Day Blacksmiths'

By Staff Sgt. Jeremy L. Mosier386th Air Expeditionary Wing Public Affairs

                SOUTHWEST ASIA  –              
*Editor's note: The original story can be viewed on the 386th Air Expeditionary Wing website.*
 

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

maintenaceMaintenance and Repair386th Air Expeditionary Wing
```

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 96 (Friday, May 18, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28068-28069]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9598]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[WY-923-1310-FI; WYW138450]

WYOMING: Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and 
Gas Lease

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas 
Lease

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of 30 U.S.C. 188(d) and (e), and 43 CFR 
3108.2-3(a) and (b)(1), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received a 
petition for reinstatement from Kennedy Oil for competitive oil and gas 
lease WYW138450 for land in Johnson County, Wyoming. The petition was 
filed on time and was accompanied by all the rentals due since the date 
the lease terminated under the law.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bureau of Land Management, Pamela J. 
Lewis, Chief, Branch of Fluid Minerals Adjudication, at (307) 775-6176.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The lessee has agreed to the amended lease 
terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $10.00 per acre or fraction 
thereof, per year and 16\2/3\ percent, respectively. The lessee has 
paid the required $500 administrative fee and $163 to reimburse the 
Department for the cost of this Federal Register notice. The lessee has 
met all the requirements for reinstatement of the lease as set out in 
Sections 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920 (30 
U.S.C. 188), and the Bureau of Land Management is proposing to 
reinstate lease WYW138450 effective March 1, 2006, under the original 
terms and conditions of the lease and the increased rental and royalty 
rates cited

[[Page 28069]]

above. BLM has not issued a valid lease affecting the lands.

Pamela J. Lewis,
Chief, Branch of Fluid Minerals Adjudication.
 [FR Doc. E7-9598 Filed 5-17-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-22-P
```
PUBLIC LAW 115–216—JULY 24, 2018 132 STAT. 1545 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 4722: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 164 (2018): 

May 7, considered and passed House. 

June 28, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 115–216 

115th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 111 Market 

Street in Saugerties, New York, as the ‘‘Maurice D. Hinchey Post Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. MAURICE D. HINCHEY POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 111 Market Street in Saugerties, New York, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Maurice D. Hinchey Post 

Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Maurice D. Hinchey Post Office Building’’. 

Approved July 24, 2018. 

July 24, 2018 

[H.R. 4722] 


dkrause on DSKBC28HB2PROD with PUBLAWS
#### Joseph HERRING, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 98-2889.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 7, 1999.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender; P. Douglas Brinkmeyer, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General; James W. Rogers, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is dismissed. *See Robinson v. State,*373 So.2d 898 (Fla.1979); Fla.R.App.P. 9.140(b)(2)(B).

JOANOS, PADOVANO and BROWNING, JJ., CONCUR.
#### Deborah Descant, wife of/and Leon J. DESCANT, Jr., individually and as Parents and Administrator of the Estate of their minor child, Edith Marie Descant v. The ADMINISTRATORS OF THE TULANE EDUCATIONAL FUND, d/b/a Tulane Medical Center Hospital and Clinic, and Dr. Eduardo Herrera.

No. 98-C-0467.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 15, 1998.

In re Tulane Educational Fund Admin.; Tulane Medical Center Hosp.; Tulane Medical Center Clinic; Herrera, Eduardo; — Defendants); applying for reconsideration of this Court’s Action dated April 3, 1998; Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court, Div. “F”, *66No. 91-222670; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 95CA-2127.

Reconsideration denied. Judgment is definitive.

LEMMON, J., not on panel.
# C_2013359EN.01001001.xml

| 7.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 359/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 359/10

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 October 2013 — Schulze v OHIM — GKL (Klassiklotterie)

(Case T-155/12) (1)

1

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Application for Community word mark Klassiklotterie - Earlier national word mark NKL-Klassiklotterie - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 359/16

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Hans Gerd Schulze (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: K. Lodigkeit, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intevener before the General Court: GKL Gemeinsame Klassenlotterie der Länder, formerly NKL Nordwestdeutsche Klassenlotterie (Hamburg) (represented by: S. Russlies, lawyer)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 January 2012 (Case R 600/2011-4) relating to invalidity proceedings between NKL Nordwestdeutsche Klassenlotterie and Mr Hans Gerd Schulze.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Hans Gerd Schulze to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Hans Gerd Schulze to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.

1

---
BOARD: 

Paul C. Aughtry, 111 

Chairman 

Edwin H. Cooper, 111 

Vice Chairman 

Steven G. Kisner 

Secretary 

September 18,2009 

DHEC 

PKO.\IOIO PKOIOCT PROSPER 

C. Earl Hunter, Commissioner 

Promoting andprotecting the health of the public and the environment 

BOARD: 

Henry C. Scott 

M. David Mitchell, MD 

Coleman F. Buckhouse, MD 

Richard A. Schutt, Chief, Air Planning Branch 

EPA Region 4 

Atlanta Federal Center 

6 1 Forsyth Street Southwest 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8909 

Re: South Carolina Fine Particulate Matter Air Quality Implementation Plan 

Dear Mr. Schutt: 

On July 29,2009, the Department of Health and Environmental Control (Department) submitted a letter 

to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4, indicating that it had met the 

obligations to public notice its proposed State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions under sections 

1 10(a)(l) and (2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), to address basic SIP requirements, including emission 

inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment and maintenance of the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) for fine particles or PM2.5 (particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than 

or equal to a nominal 2.5 mircometers). 

On July 24,2009, a Public Notice was published in the South Carolina State Register providing the public 

with the opportunity to request a public hearing on the issue. Pursuant to 40 CFR 5 1.102, no request for a 

public hearing was received by the close of the 30-day public comment period (August 24,2009), and as 

a result, the hearing was cancelled. 

As outlined in the enclosed attachments to this letter, the Department is certifying to the EPA that the 

"infrastructure" elements pertaining to the Pki2.5 attainment/unclassifiable areas in South Carolina [as 

required under Section 1 10(a)(l) and (2) of the CAA] have been addressed. Should you have any further 

questions concerning South Carolina's fine particulate matter SIP, please feel free to contact Maeve S. R. 

Mason of my staff at (803) 898-2230 or masonmrO,dhec.sc.gov. WbFb 

Robert J. Brown, Jr Director 

Division of Air ~laKnin~, Development & Outreach 

Bureau of Air Quality 

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control 

ec: Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory Development Section, EPA Region 4 

Zuri Farngalo, Environmental Scientist, EPA Region 4 

Joel Huey, PM Coordinator, EPA Region 4 

cc: Myra C. Reece, Chief, Bureau of Air Quality, SCDHEC 

Renee Shealy, Assistant Bureau Chief, Bureau of Air Quality, SCDHEC 

Enclosures: 

Attachment A: Certification of 1 1 O(a)(l) and (2) Requirements 

Attachment B: SIP Submittal Completeness Criteria Checklist 

Attachment C: State Register Notice of Public Hearing (July 24,2009) 

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL 

2600 Bull Street Columbia, SC 29201 Phone: (803) 898-3432 wwwscdhecgov
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 98 (Tuesday, May 22, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 28694]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9803]


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

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK


Economic Impact Policy

    This notice is to inform the public that the Export-Import Bank of 
the United States has received an application to guarantee 
approximately $54 in commercial bank financing for the export of 
approximately $54 million in U.S. equipment and services to a hot 
briquetted iron (HBI) plant in Russia. This project is not associated 
with an increase in steel production capacity. The U.S. exports will 
enable the facility to produce approximately 1.4 million metric tons of 
HBI as a steel scrap substitute. Initial production of HBI at this 
facility is expected to commence in 2008.
    Available information indicates that the HBI will be consumed 
primarily in the Ukraine, with smaller amounts being consumed in Russia 
and Holland. Interested parties may submit comments on this transaction 
by e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ee968b8d81808183878dc087839e8f8d9aae8b968783c0898198"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fd85989e92939290949ed394908d9c9e89bd98859490d39a928b">[email protected]</span></a> or by mail to 811 Vermont 
Avenue, NW., Room 1238, Washington, DC 20571, within 14 days of the 
date this notice appears in the Federal Register.

Helene S. Walsh,
Director, Policy Oversight and Review.
[FR Doc. E7-9803 Filed 5-21-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6690-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Globe Shipping Co., Inc. *v.*United States

No. 7728.

Entry No. 826235.

(Decided August 8, 1949)

*John D. Rode*for the plaintiff.

*David N. Edelstein,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

This appeal for a reappraisement involves the question of the proper value of certain bottle caps imported from Holland.

Counsel for the respective parties have submitted the appeal for decision upon a stipulation to the effect that the issues in this appeal are the same in all material respects as the issues in *Budde & Westermann*v. *United States,*22 Cust. Ct. 441, Reap. Dec. 7699, and that the price at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market of the country of exportation, in *265the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, was the invoice unit prices, net packed, less ocean freight and marine insurance, and that there was no higher foreign value.

Upon the agreed statement of facts, and following the cited authority, I find the proper dutiable export value of the bottle caps covered by this appeal to be the invoice unit prices, net packed, less ocean freight and marine insurance. Judgment will issue accordingly.