alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 98 (Tuesday, May 22, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 28732]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9779]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

Federal Register Citation of Previous Announcement: [To be published].

Status: Closed Meeting.

Place: 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC.

Date and Time of Previously Announced Meeting: Thursday, May 17, 2007 
at 9:45 a.m.

Change in the Meeting:  Cancellation of Meeting.
    The Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday, May 17, 2007 has been 
cancelled.
    For further information please contact the Office of the Secretary 
at (202) 551-5400.

    Dated: May 17, 2007.
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-9779 Filed 5-21-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 6117** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. JERMOL CHIN , Defendant

– Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Mar yland , at Baltimore
. William D. Quarles, Jr. , District Judge. ( 1:06

- cr - 00552

- WDQ

- 1; 1:09

- cv - 2317

- WDQ )

Submitted : June 17, 2010 Decided: June 25, 2010

Before MOTZ and KING , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Dismissed by un pub lished per curiam opinion
. Jermol Chin, Appellant Pro Se. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Debra Lynn Dwyer, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circui t.2 PER CURIAM: Jermol Chin seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2009 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 225 3(c)(1) (200 6 ). 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) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the dis trict court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We h ave independently reviewed the record and conclude that Chin has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Chin’s motion s for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral3 argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of CEO and CFO 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended January 29, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission by Electronics Boutique Holdings Corp. (the "Company") on the date hereof (the "Report"), Jeffrey W. Griffiths, as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and James A. Smith,
as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to his knowledge:



|By: |  | /s/ Jeffrey W. Griffiths
|--- |  | ------------------------
|    |  | Name:                   
|    |  | Title:                  
|    |  | Date:                   
|By: |  | /s/ James A. Smith      
|    |  | Name:                   
|    |  | Title:                  
|    |  | Date:                   

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.

A
signed original of this certification required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.

---



QuickLinks
# C_2012243EN.01003101.xml

| 11.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 243/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 243/31

---

Action brought on 15 June 2012 — Unister v OHIM (Ab in den Urlaub)

(Case T-273/12)

2012/C 243/54

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Unister GmbH (Leipzig, Germany) (represented by H. Hug and A. Kessler-Jensch, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

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 3 April 2012 in Case R 2150/2011-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 April 2012 in Case R 2150/2011-1;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘Ab in den Urlaub’ for services in classes 35, 39, 41 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 9 692 286

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Registration refused

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law:

Pleas in law:

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

| — | Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009

---
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. sec. 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of IWT Tesoro Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30 , 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Henry J. Boucher, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sec. 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; and

 

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

 
| Dated:  August 13, 2004 | /s/Henry J. Boucher, Jr.              |   |
|------------------------------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|                         | Henry J. Boucher, Jr.,                |
|                         | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-2209

STEVEN ROLLAKANTI,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

HOLY CROSS HOSPITAL,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. 

Timothy J. Sullivan, Magistrate Judge. (8:22-cv-00887-TJS)

Submitted: March 21, 2023 Decided: March 23, 2023

Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steven Rollakanti, Appellant Pro Se. Robert R. Niccolini, OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH 

SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2209 Doc: 14 Filed: 03/23/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Stephen Rollakanti appeals the magistrate judge’s order granting Appellee’s 

motion for sanctions and dismissing Rollakanti’s complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 

37(b)(2)(A)(v).

*

 We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm the magistrate judge’s order. Rollakanti v. Holy Cross Hosp., No. 8:22-cv00887-TJS (D. Md. Nov. 15, 2022). 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.

AFFIRMED

* The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(c).

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2209 Doc: 14 Filed: 03/23/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
§1350,




AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO




SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002






In
connection with the Annual Report of Rubicon Minerals Corporation
(the “Company”) on Form 40-F for the period ended December 31, 2009 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, David W. Adamson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. §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;  and






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






March 31,
2010                                                                “David
Adamson”




David
W. Adamson


Chief
Executive Officer




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Rubicon Minerals Corporation and will be retained by Rubicon Minerals
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
No. 54372.

#### A. Maschmeijer, Jr., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 134108-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise in question consists of powdered extract of ox gall or bile the same in all material respects as the substance passed upon in Abstract 52867. The claim of the plaintiffs was therefore sustained.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 40396 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,** Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus

**Horacio Velez**

**- Escalante,**  Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:20

- CR

- 751

- 1

Before **Higginbotham, Higginson,** and **Duncan,** Circuit Judges

. **Per Curiam :**  * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Horacio Velez

Escalante has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Velez

- Escalante has not filed a response. We have

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 22, 2021 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-40396 Document: 00516141329 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/22/2021No. 21

- 40396

2 reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue fo r appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is **GRANTED** , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the **APPEAL IS DISMISSED**

. See **5th Cir. R.**  42.2

. Case: 21-40396 Document: 00516141329 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/22/2021
No. 96-284.

#### Laube, dba Kim E. Laube Co. *v.*Sunbeam Corp.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
# C_2014329EN.01002501.xml

| 22.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/25

---

Order of the General Court of 7 July 2014 — Khwanda v Council

(Case T-178/12) (1)

1

2014/C 329/36

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 174, 16.6.2012.

1

---
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 18, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-41048

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RIGOBERTO EFRAIN ESTRADA-CHOJOLAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-03-CR-342-ALL

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

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Rigoberto Efrain Estrada-Chojolan appeals the sentence

imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in

the United States after deportation/removal in violation of

8 U.S.C. § 1326. Estrada-Chojolan contends that the “felony” and

“aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2)

are unconstitutional. He therefore argues that his conviction

must be reduced to one under the lesser included offense found in

8 U.S.C. § 1362(a), his judgment must be reformed to reflect a
No. 03-41048

-2-

conviction only under that provision, and his sentence must be

vacated and the case remanded for resentencing to no more than

two years’ imprisonment and one year of supervised release. 

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Estrada-Chojolan acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed

by Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his arguments for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
On the letterhead of SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc.
 
 
 
 SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc.
 Suite 1300 – 151 Yonge Street,
 Toronto, Ontario, Canada
 M5C 2W7
  Phone: 1-416-601-1445
 Fax:  1-416-601-9046
  www.srk.com
       To the Board of Directors of Rubicon Minerals Corporation (the “Company”)
    I, Daniel Hewitt, on behalf of SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc., hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this annual report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2013 of the amended and restated technical report titled, “Preliminary Economic Assessment for the F2 Gold System, Phoenix Gold Project, Red Lake, Ontario” prepared by SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc. dated effective June 25, 2013 and filed on SEDAR on February 28, 2014 (the “Technical Report”) and to extracts from, or a summary of, the Technical Report in the written disclosure contained in the Company’s annual information form for the financial year ended December 31, 2013,  dated March 26, 2014.
  We also consent to the incorporation by reference of the above report into Rubicon Minerals Corporation’s Registration Statement (No. 333-194076) on Form F-10.
   Dated as of this 26th day of March, 2014
   Original signed by:
  SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc.
 By:
  “/s/ Daniel Hewitt”
 _______________________
 Name: Daniel Hewitt, P.Eng
 Title: Principal Consultant (Mining)
No. 96-7991.

#### Sutton *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S.DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1                       1
<CASH>                                          22,717                  37,109
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  434,491                 519,714
<ALLOWANCES>                                    10,437                   8,730
<INVENTORY>                                    465,705                 467,963
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               997,155               1,073,353
<PP&E>                                         659,581                 560,207
<DEPRECIATION>                                 284,345                 247,544
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,758,988               1,672,499
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          693,300                 473,372
<BONDS>                                        368,823                 371,579
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        48,793                  48,216
<OTHER-SE>                                     585,241                 523,829
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,758,988               1,672,499
<SALES>                                      2,118,715               2,167,952
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,118,715               2,167,952
<CGS>                                        1,489,656               1,515,353
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,489,656               1,515,353
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               503,750                 403,653
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,016                   2,976
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              43,371                  28,991
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 81,938                 219,955
<INCOME-TAX>                                    26,279                  59,109
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             34,069                 121,329
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    34,069                 121,329
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.71                    2.55
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.70                    2.52
        

</TABLE>
#### STOKES v. SAYRE.

June 18, 1835.

*Rule to show cause why judgment should not he entered for want of an affidavit of defence.*

Debt on a recognizance of special bail to the action is not within the meaning of the act of the 28th of March 1835, so as to entitle the plaintiff to a judgment for want of an affidavit of defence.

THIS was debt on the defendant’s recognizance of special bail in another case.

The plaintiff filed a copy of the recognizance within one week from the return day of the writ. The defendant filed no affidavit of defence. The plaintiff took a rule to show cause why judgment should not be entered for want of an affidavit of defence under the second section of the act of the 28th of March 1835.

1. *Morris,*

for the rule.

*26Pee Curiam.

This rule must be discharged. The case does not come within the provisions of the act referred to, in relation to taking judgments for want of an affidavit of defence.

Rule discharged,
(Reap. Dec. 9913)

#### Standard Oil Co. of Calif. (Barham) *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 40760; 1131; 5242.

(Decided February 15, 1961)

*Sharretts, Paley & Garter*for the plaintiff.

*WilUam S. Orrielc, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

Certain seamless steel line pipe and seamless steel oil well casing exported from England comprise the subject merchandise of the appeals for a reappraisement enumerated in the schedule A, attached to and made part of the decision herein.

The parties hereto have entered into a stipulation of fact wherein it has been agreed as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel that the merchandise covered by the appeals for reappraisement listed on Schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, consists of seamless steel line pipe and seamless steel oil well casing exported from England.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the market values or the prices of the merchandise listed in Schedule B, hereto attached and made a part hereof, at the times 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 markets of the countries from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States are set forth on said Schedule B, and that there were no higher foreign values.

Upon the agreed facts before the court, I find and hold that export value, as that value is defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1402(d)), is the proper basis of value for the seamless steel line pipe and oil well casing in issue and that said value is as set forth in schedule B, hereto attached.

As to any other merchandise, the appeals are dismissed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.

SCHEDULE B

Reappraisement No. Net packed

R59-1878/18543 £128.571 less 2%% per 100 feet

R59-2722/18658 £101.136 less 2%% per 100 feet

R59-16296/21771 £0-12-11 per foot
Before the Second Division,

April 24, 1943

No. 48227.

#### Protest 998406-G of L. I. Lubin, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following Abstracts 47291 and 46497 the protest was sustained as io those two items.