alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Drug Enforcement Administration 

                    By Notice dated December 14, 2006, and published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on December 22, 2006, (71 FR 77065-77066), Johnson Matthey Inc., Custom Pharmaceuticals Department, 2003 Nolte Drive, West Deptford, New Jersey 08066, made application by letter to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of 14-Hydroxymorphinone (9654), a basic class of controlled substance listed in schedule II.                 

                    The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances in bulk as an intermediate for use in the production of another controlled substance.                           ( print page 28075)    

No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Johnson Matthey Inc. to manufacture the listed basic class of controlled substance is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Johnson Matthey Inc. to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with State and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic class of controlled substance listed. 

Dated: May 9, 2007. 

Joseph T. Rannazzisi, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration.

[FR Doc. E7-9639 Filed 5-17-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
##### 



Exhibit 32.1

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 DiCon Fiberoptics, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Ho-Shang Lee, President and Chief Executive 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; 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/ Ho-Shang Lee
Ho-Shang Lee
President and Chief Executive Officer
(chief executive officer)

November 10, 2003

This certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
purpose.

- 27 -
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

February 2, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132016-7 & (85) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

GARY A. BROWN and HAROLD C. Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, NELTHROPE, Justices Plaintiffs-Appellees/

Cross-Appellants, 

v SC: 132016-7 

 COA: 259911, 259923 

 Wayne CC: 03-317557-NZ 
 MAYOR OF DETROIT and CITY OF DETROIT, 

Defendants-Appellants/ 

Cross-Appellees.
 

_________________________________________/ 

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

judgment of the Court of Appeals and the application for leave to appeal as crossappellant are considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral argument on whether to 

grant the applications or take other peremptory action. MCR 7.302(G)(1). The parties 

shall submit supplemental briefs within 42 days of the date of this order addressing 

whether an employee of a public body must report to an outside agency or higher 

authority to be protected by the Whistleblower Protection Act, MCL 15.361 et seq., and, 

if so, what statutory language supports that conclusion. They should avoid submitting a 

mere restatement of the arguments made in their application papers. 

s0130 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

February 2, 2007 

Clerk
1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 1 0 0 1 1 0

1 9 5 0 1 9 6 0 1 9 7 0 1 9 8 0 1 9 9 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 1 0

S h a d e d a r e a s i n d i c a t e U S r e c e s s i o n s

- 2 0 1 5 r e s e a r c h

. s t l o u i s f e d

. o r g S o u r c e : U S

. B u r e a u o f E c o n o m i c A n a l y s i s

G r o s s D o m e s t i c P r o d u c t : I m p l i c i t P r i c e D e f l a t o r(Index2009=100)
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 0 D0 08 3 . PEDRO ALVARDO-VALLE v . THE STATE.

Ped ro Al v ard o -Val le p l ed g u i l t y t o cri m i n al at t em pt to c om m it k idna pping wi th

b o d i l y in ju ry an d ag g rav at ed as sau l t i n 2 0 1 7

. Al v ard o -Val le fi l ed a m o t i o n t o

wi t h d raw h i s g u i lt y p l e a. Th e t ri al co u rt d is m i ss ed t h e m o t i o n

, an d Al vard o -Val l e

fi led a t i m el y

ap p l i cat i on fo r d i s cret i on ary rev iew. 1

Bas ed on t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s o rd er d en y i n g Al v ard o -Val l e’ s m o ti o n t o wi t h d raw

h i s gu i l t y p l ea, th e m o t i o n was fi l ed o u t s id e t h e t erm o f co u rt o f h i s ju d g m en t o f

co n vi ct i o n

. See El li s on v. S t at e

, 2 8 3 Ga. 4 6 1

, 4 61 (6 6 0 SE2 d 3 7 3 ) (2 0 0 8 ) (n o t i n g t h at

a m ot i o n t o wi t h d raw a g u i l t y pl ea m u s t be fi l ed i n t h e s am e t erm o f co u rt i n wh i ch

t h e p l ea was en t ered an d a t ri al co u rt l ack s ju ri s d i ct i on t o g ran t an u n ti m el y m o t i o n ).

Ho wev er, o rd ers res o l v i n g ou t -o f-t im e m o t i o n s to wi t h d raw g u il t y p leas h av e b een

t reat ed by o u r Su p rem e Co u rt as d i rect l y ap p eal ab le. See i d .; S m i t h v. S ta t e

, 2 8 3 Ga.

3 7 6

, 3 7 6 -3 7 7 (6 5 9 SE2 d 38 0 ) (2 0 0 8 ). Th u s

, i t ap p ears t h at t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s o rd er i s

s u b ject t o d i rect ap p eal

.

W e wi l l g ran t an o th erwi s e t i m el y ap pl i cat i o n fo r d i s c r e t i o n a r y a p p e al i f t h e

l o wer co u rt ’ s o rd er i s s u b j ect t o d i rect ap p eal

. See OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (j). Acco rd i n g l y

,

t h i s ap p li cat i on i s h ereb y GRANT ED

, an d Al v ard o-Val le s h al l h av e ten d ay s fro m

t h e d at e o f t h i s o rd er t o fi l e h i s n o t i ce o f ap peal wi t h t h e t ri al co u rt

. If h e h as al read y

fi led a no t i ce of a p p e a l in th e tri al co u rt

, h e n eed n o t fi l e an ad d i t i o nal n ot i ce. Th e

1 Th e o rd er fro m wh i ch Al v ard o -Val l e ap peal s i s no t fi l e-s t am p ed

, b u t t h e

ap p li cat io n n on et h el es s ap p ears t o b e t i m el y b as ed o n t he d at e t h e ord er was s i g n ed

. October 16, 2019cl erk o f t h e t ri al co u rt i s DIRECTED t o i n cl u d e a co p y o f t h is o r d e r i n t h e reco rd s

t ran s m i t t ed t o t h e Co u rt o f Ap p eal s

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

.

W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 10/16/2019
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7488

TERENCE TERELL BRYAN, a/k/a T. Terell Bryan, a/k/a Terence 

Bryan,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

SCDC; WARDEN CARTLEDGE; RESPONSIBLE OFFICERS,

Respondents – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. 

(4:08-cv-01590-TLW)

Submitted: March 31, 2011 Decided: April 6, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terence Terell Bryan, Appellant Pro Se. Erin Mary Farrell, 

Daniel Roy Settana, Jr., MCKAY, CAUTHEN, SETTANA & STUBLEY, PA, 

Columbia, South Carolina; Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant 

Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Terence Terell Bryan seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation and granting the South Carolina Department of 

Corrections’ motion for summary judgment on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

(2006) petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction 

because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. 

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of 

the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends 

the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the 

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely 

filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional 

requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket 

on March 16, 2009. The notice of appeal was filed on 

October 20, 2010.*

 * For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date 

appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could 

have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to 

the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 

(1988).

Because Bryan failed to file a timely notice 

of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal 

period, we dismiss the appeal. Accordingly, we deny Bryan’s 

motions for a certificate of appealability and to appoint 
3

counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
# C_2015371EN.01000601.xml

| 9.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 September 2015 — Total Marketing Services, successor in law to Total Raffinage Marketing v European Commission

(Case C-634/13 P) (1)

1

((Appeals - Competition - Paraffin waxes market - Slack wax market - Duration of participation in an unlawful cartel - Cessation of the participation - Interruption of the participation - Absence of collusive contact established during a certain period of time - Continuation of the infringement - Burden of proof - Public distancing - Perception of the other participants in the cartel of the company’s intention to distance itself - Obligation to state reasons - Principles of the presumption of innocence, equal treatment, effective judicial protection and that penalties must be specific))

(2015/C 371/07)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Total Marketing Services, successor in law to Total Raffinage Marketing (represented by: A. Vandencasteele, C. Lemaire and S. Naudin, avocats)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: P. Van Nuffel and A. Biolan, acting as Agents, assisted by N. Coutrelis, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2) | Orders Total Marketing Services SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders Total Marketing Services SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 45, 15.2.2014.

1

---
**CONSENT
        OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**
 
 
 
 
 We
        consent to the use in MDS Inc.’s Annual Report on Form 40-F of our report dated
        January 15, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of
        MDS
        Inc. (“MDS” or the “Company”), included in the 2006 Annual Report to
        Shareholders of the Company.
 
 We
        also
        consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
        on Form
        S-8 (Nos. 333-12056, 333-12058, 333-12548, and 333-13538) of our reports
        dated
        January 15, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of
        the
        Company, MDS management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control
        over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over
        financial reporting of the Company incorporated by reference in the Annual
        Report on Form 40-F for the year ended October 31, 2006.
 
 
 Chartered
        Accountants
 Toronto,
        Canada,
 January
        26, 2007
Exhibit 10.9  




ASSIGNMENT OF LEASE 



THIS ASSIGNMENT made the
15th day of August 2003. 



BETWEEN: 



INDUSTRIAL MINERALS
INCORPORATED 



(the
“Assignor”) 



and 



INDUSTRIAL MINERALS
CANADA INC. 



(the
“Assignee”) 



WHEREAS: 



	 	1. 	By
a lease dated September 10th, 1993 and registered on October 1,           1993
as Instrument Number 364704 in the Land Registry office of the County of
          Renfrew (the “Lease”). Her Majesty The Queen In Right Of The Province
          Of Ontario (the “Lessor”), leased under the Mining Act to
Consolidated           North Coast Industries Ltd. the premises (the “Premises”)
known as           Schedules “A-1" and “A-2” attached hereto, for a
term of 21           years and subject to the terms and conditions set out therein.  






	 	2. 	By
Assignment of Lease dated December 21st, 2001 and registered in           the
Land Registry of the County of Renfrew on January 22, 2002 as Instrument No.
          R0429883, Great Basin Gold Ltd., as successor in interest to Consolidated North
          Coast Industries Ltd., assigned its interest in said lease to Paul C. McLean,
          Estate of Pierre G. Lacombe and Frank G. Tagliamonte, as owners of the premises
          as set out in Schedule “A” attached hereto, free of encumbrance;  






	 	3. 	By
Assignment of Lease dated January 31, 2002 and registered in the Land           Registry
Office of the County of Renfrew on March 4, 2002 as Instrument No.           R429007,
Paul C. McLean, Estate of Pierre G, Lacombe and Frank G. Tagliamnote,           assigned
their interest in said Lease to Westland Capital Inc., as owner of the           premises
as set out in Schedule “A” attached hereto, free of           encumbrance.  






	 	4. 	By
Assignment of Lease dated January 31, 2002 and registered in the Land           Registry
Office of the County of Renfrew on March 4, 2002 as Instrument No.           R429008,
Westland Capital Inc., assigned its interest in said Lease to           Industrial
Minerals Incorporated, as owner of the premises as set out in           Schedule “A” attached
hereto, free of encumbrance.  






	 	5. 	The
Assignee has requested the Assignor to transfer the residue of the term of
          years and assign to it the lease:  














NOW THEREFORE: 



In consideration of $1.00, paid by
the Assignee to the Assignor (the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged) the Assignor as
beneficial owner hereby assigns to the Assignee the Assignor’s interest in the
Premises together with the unexpired residue of the term of the Lease and all benefits to
be derived form it subject to the payment of the renst and the observance and performance
of the covenants, provisos, and conditions on the part of the lessee contained in the
Lease. 



WITNESS our hands and seals. 



SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVED 
in
the presence of: 


















		
		Industrial Minerals Incorporated



Per: /s/ John Melnyk

         John Melnyk







Industrial Minerals Canada Inc.



Per: /s/ John Melnyk

         John Melnyk 













303373.1
• Contact Us •

CCS Project Database

Overview

Map of Projects

Power Plant CCS Projects

Non­Power Plant CCS Projects

Commercial EOR Projects

Pilot Projects

Project: Buggenum

Announced Projects

Cancelled and Inactive Projects

Recent Updates and News

Regional CCS Financing

Summaries

Other Online Databases

Buggenum Fact Sheet: Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage Project

Company/Alliance: Vattenfall, Nuon

Location: Willem­Alexander Power Plant, Buggenum, Netherlands

Feedstock: Coal and biomass

Size: 20 MW slip stream from 253 MW plant

Capture Technology: Pre­combustion IGCC­ 90% CO2 capture

CO2 Fate: As there is no suitable reservoir in the vicinity of Buggenum, the CO2 released from the capture solvent is

compressed and mixed together with the hydrogen­rich stream emerging from the top of the absorber. It is then fed back to

the power plant to the syngas line and then to the gas turbine.

Timing: Construction 2009; Start February 2011. Officially opened May 2011. Completed 2013

Motivation/Economics:

Project cost is estimated to be about 40 million euros. The project is supported by the Dutch government with 20 million

euros and Vattenfall is applying for EU support in the NER300 scheme. It has also received EU $10 million of funding from

the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs.

Comments:

Based on the results from the Buggenum pilot plant Vattenfall will apply the knowledge to Nuon's new power plant Magnum

at Eemshaven (see announced projects). The Buggenum plant has been operating as an IGCC power plant since 2001. Th

project will use a slipstream of the product gas , corresponding to about 20 MW capacity. The process includes all steps, a

reformer, water­shift converter, desulfurization and capture unit. It will produce liquid CO2.

Project Link: Vattenfall's Buggenum Project website

Technical Papers:

Damen, T K, R Faber, R Gnutek, HAJ van Dijk, C Trapp, L Valenz, Performance and Modelling of the Pre­combustion

Capture Pilot Plant at the Buggenum IGCC, Energy Procedia, Vol 63, pp 6207­6214, (2014). <Link to PDF>

Other Sources and Press Release:

Vattenfall officially opens Buggenum (May 2011)

Nuon commences CCS plant (February 2011)

The next stage for Nuon's Buggenum (May 2010)

Vattenfall making progress on pilot plant carbon capture (February 2010)

Nuon starts construction of CO2 capture test at Buggenum (April 2009)

Date Modified February 5, 2015

Please send any comments, additions or corrections to csi@mit.edu

|| || ||

Home Bibliography Research C.S.I. CCS Project

Database

Tools About Us
# C_2013377EN.01001401.xml

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/14

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2013 — IBSolution v OHIM — IBS (IBSolution)

(Case T-533/12) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark IBSolution - Earlier Community figurative mark IBS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 377/32

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: IBSolution GmbH (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: F. Ekey, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: IBS AB (Solna, Sweden)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 September 2012 (Case R 771/2011-2) relating to opposition proceedings between IBS AB and IBSolution GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders IBSolution GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders IBSolution GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 46, 16.2.2013.

1

---
1 The Honorable Mark W. Be nnett, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 06-1430

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Northern District of Iowa. Ricardo Sandoval-Cerrantes, also * known as Ruben Sandoval, al so known * [UNPUBLISHED] as Ruben Murguia, also known as * Thomas Johnson, * * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: January 5, 2007 Filed: January 17, 2007

___________ Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Ricardo Sandoval-Cerrantes (Cerrantes) appeals the 96-month prison sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to being an illegal alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326( a). His counsel has moved to withdraw, and in a brief filed under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), he argues that-2- Cerrantes’s sentence--at the top of the advisory Guidelines range--is unreasonable. In a pro se motion, Cerrantes moves for appointment of new counsel. We cannot say that Cerrantes’s se ntence was unreasonable. The court specifically declined to impose a more leni ent sentence because of Cerrantes’s history and characteristics, namely, his troubling criminal history; and counsel has not succeeded in rebutting the presumption of reasonableness that attaches to a sentence imposed within the advisory Guidelines range. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1) (sentencing factors); United States v. Long Soldier , 431 F.3d 1120, 1123 (8th Cir. 2005) (relevant inquiry is wh ether court actually considered § 3553(a) factors and whether appellate court’s reviewof those factors leads it to conclude that they support finding of reasonableness); United States v. Lincoln , 413 F.3d 716, 717-18 (8th Cir.) (sentence within Guidelines range is pr esumptively reasonable; defendant bears burden to rebut presumption of reasonableness), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 840 (2005). In his pro se motion Cerrantes appears to raise claims of an involuntary guilty plea and ineffective assistance of counsel, ne ither of which is properly before us in this direct criminal appeal. See United States v. Woods , 270 F.3d 728, 730 (8th Cir. 2001); United States v. Cain , 134 F.3d 1345, 1352 (8th Cir. 1998). Further, having carefully reviewed the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no other nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly we affrim the judgment, gr ant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and deny Cerrantes’s pro se motion for appointment of new counsel.

______________________________