alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013164EN.01000902.xml

| 8.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Wedding (Deutschland) lodged on 14 March 2013 — Raiffeisenbank St. Georgen reg. Gen. m.b.H. v Tetyana Bonchyk

(Case C-120/13)

2013/C 164/15

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Amtsgericht Wedding

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Raiffeisenbank St. Georgen reg. Gen. m.b.H.

Applicant:

Defendant: Tetyana Bonchyk

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure (1) be interpreted to mean that a defendant may apply for a review by the competent court of the European order for payment also where the order for payment was not served on him or not effectively served on him? In those circumstances, may recourse be had, mutatis mutandis, in particular to Article 20(1) or Article 20(2) of Regulation No 1896/2006? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure (1) be interpreted to mean that a defendant may apply for a review by the competent court of the European order for payment also where the order for payment was not served on him or not effectively served on him? In those circumstances, may recourse be had, mutatis mutandis, in particular to Article 20(1) or Article 20(2) of Regulation No 1896/2006?

1

mutatis mutandis

| 2. | Furthermore, if the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:
  What are the legal consequences for the procedure if the application for review is successful; may recourse be had in that connection, mutatis mutandis, in particular to Article 20(3) or Article 17(1) of Regulation No 1896/2006? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Furthermore, if the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:

What are the legal consequences for the procedure if the application for review is successful; may recourse be had in that connection, mutatis mutandis, in particular to Article 20(3) or Article 17(1) of Regulation No 1896/2006?

mutatis mutandis

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 399, p. 1.

1

---
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**

In connection with theannual report of Non Invasive Monitoring, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the period ending July 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gary W. Macleod,,Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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. 

Dated: November 13, 2006
Opinion issued November 24, 2020

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 20
- 00711
- CV

——————————— IN RE COMMITMENT JOHN PALMER , Relat or

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Prohibition

MEMORANDU M OPINION
Rela t or, Joh n William Palmer, ac ting pro se but represented by counsel in
the court below , has filed a petition for writ of prohibition

. 1 In the petition, he complains that the trial cour t violated Texas Code of Criminal Procedure art. 2.01
and 18 U.S.C. § § 4 2 41 , 1001, and 4

.

1 The underlying case is State of Texas v. John Palmer , cause number 1584989 , pending in the 183rd District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Hon orable Mark Kent Ellis presiding.2

W e deny relator ’s petit ion for writ of prohibition

. All pending motions are
denied as moot.
P ER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Lloyd and Kelly

.
May 29, 1951

No. 55616.

Suit 4650.

#### United States *v.*United Geophysical Company.

C. D. 1238 affirmed March 6, 1951. C. A. D. 451.
---

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 Annual Report of CCA Industries, Inc. (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-K for the annual period ended November 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Dunnan D. Edell, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:





1)
The Report, to which this certification is attached, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Action 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 Registrant.





Date:  February 28, 2011
/s/ DUNNAN D. EDELLDunnan D. EdellChief Executive Officer
---

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 Annual Report of CCA Industries, Inc. (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-K for the annual period ended November 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Stephen A. Heit, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:





(1)
The Report, to which this certification is attached, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Action 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 Registrant.





Date:  February 28, 2011
/s/ STEPHEN A. HEITStephen A. HeitChief Financial Officer
# C_2014315EN.01004503.xml

| 15.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 315/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/45

---

Order of the President of the Court of 10 July 2014 — European Commission v Council of the European Union: interveners: European Parliament, Federal Republic of Germany and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-86/13) (1)

1

2014/C 315/74

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 123, 27.4.2013.

1

---
No. 42154.

#### Protests 985153-G, etc., of Cudahy Packing Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 40880 the protests were sustained.
115 STAT. 6 PUBLIC LAW 107–4—MAR. 16, 2001

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.J. Res. 19:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 147 (2001):

Feb. 28, considered and passed House.

Mar. 1, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 107–4

107th Congress

Joint Resolution

Providing for the appointment of Walter E. Massey as a citizen regent of the

Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, That, in accordance

with section 5581 of the Revised Statutes of the United States

(20 U.S.C. 43), the vacancy on the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, in the class other than Members of Congress,

occurring by reason of the expiration of the term of Frank A.

Shrontz of Washington on May 4, 2000, is filled by the appointment

of Walter E. Massey of Georgia. The appointment is for a term

of 6 years and shall take effect on the date of the enactment

of this joint resolution.

Approved March 16, 2001.

Mar. 16, 2001

[H.J. Res. 19]
District Clerk’s LetterOnReceipt NOAatt.wpd

CHRIS DANIEL

HARRIS COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK

CIVIL/FAMILY POST TRIAL

DATE: JUNE 3, 2015

FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS INFORMATION SHEET BY TRIAL COURT 

CLERK

Note to trial court clerk: You are expected to file the clerk’s record by the original due date. If 

you cannot, you should advise the Clerk of the Fourteenth Court of Appeals immediately in 

writing, stating the reason and the date by which the record will be filed. Generally speaking, 

for good cause shown, the Court will grant no more than two extensions from the original due 

date, each extension not to exceed 30 days.

Appellate Case Number 14-14-00365-CV

Trial Court Case Number:55TH

Trial Court Number 2010-79184

______________________________________________________________________________

Information from Trial Court Clerk

The clerk’s record will be completed and filed with the appellate court clerk by the 

original due date, subject to payment arrangements being made.

The clerk’s record will not be filed by the original due date. (Please state reasons below) 

Reason(s): 

I believe I can file the clerk’s record by , and I request an extension.

 

X Appellant has not made payment arrangements. Record cost and Balance due $949.00.

X Appellant has been notified that the clerk’s record is ready.

Appellant has made payment arrangements.

 CHRIS DANIEL,

 CLERK DISTRICT COURT,

 HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

BY: /s/ PHYLLIS WASHINGTON

 FILED IN 14th COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 6/4/2015 12:12:16 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
AP1 R04-30-92

JUNE 3, 2015

GREGORY K. SAXE TBN#17694900

ATTY AT LAW

6666 HARWIN DR STE 600

HOUSTON, TX 77036

PH: 713-995-5733

FX: 713-995-5122

Re: No. 2010-79184 SENT VIA: FAX ONLY

Dear Customer:

This letter is to inform you of the balance, which represents the cost to our office of preparing, at your request, 

the Original Clerk’s Record in the above numbered case. Rule (35.3) of the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure requires that payment of this cost be remitted to our office prior to forwarding the clerk’s record to 

the Court of Appeals.

ORIGINAL CLERKS RECORD $943.00

 LESS DEPOSIT PAID $0.00

DELIVERED TO THE 14TH COURT OF APPEALS

BALANCE DUE $943.00

You may remit your payment in the form of attorney or law firm check, money order or cashier’s check, payable to Chris Daniel,

District Clerk, by mailing to: Chris Daniel, District Clerk, Attn: Civil/Family Post Trial, P.O. Box 4651, Houston, TX 77210-

4651.

 

Payment also may be remitted in person at the following location: Chris Daniel, District Clerk, Civil/Family Post Trial, 201 

Caroline, Room 250, Houston, TX 77002.

 

Please be informed that this correspondence is the only notice you will receive from this office regarding this payment.

 CHRIS DANIEL,

 CLERK DISTRICT COURT,

 HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

 BY: /s/ PHYLLIS WASHINGTON

 PHYLLIS WASHINGTON, DEPUTY
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

I n the interest of K.M.W.H. and * From the 29 th District

B.J.T.H., Jr. , children, Court of Palo Pinto County,

Trial Court No. C46436

.

No. 11

- 16

- 00357

- CV * March 31, 2017

* Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J. , and Bailey, J. )

This court has considered the mother’s motion to dismiss her appeal and

concludes that the motion should be granted. This court has also inspected the

record in this cause

, and we conclude that the father’s appeal should also be

dismissed. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opinion, the appeal is

dismissed.
-86 -84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72 -70 -68

 30

 32

 34

 36

 38

 40

 42

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★

▲

▲

▲

▲ 500

 1000

 1500

 1000

18 12 06 00

06/07

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 07 Jun 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.77 N 77.11 W Meters AGL
#### Export & Import Woolens Co. *v.*United States

No. 6888.

Entry No. WHB 5316.

Invoice dated London, England, February 1945.

Certified April 1945.

Entered at New York, N. Y., April 13, 1945.

(Decided February 18, 1947)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

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

Cole, Judge (Abstract):

This appeal for reappraisement of various items of merchandise concerns the so-called British purchase tax, described in the law of the United Kingdom entitled, “Finance (No. 2) Act 1940 3 & 4 Geo. 6 Ch. 48.” The said tax was held not to be an item to be included in foreign value as defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (c)). *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. 183, C. A. D. 334.

An agreed set of facts shows export value, section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (d)), to be the proper basis for appraisement of the instant merchandise, and that such statutory values for the woolen cloth in question are the appraised values less additions made by the importer on entry because of advances in similar cases.
No. 39206.

#### Protest 894289-G of Sun Wing Wo Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

The protest was sustained as to 3 percent of the rice covered by certain items.
#### NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH PENNSYLVANIA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, as successor to the Resolution Trust Corporation, as receiver for Pioneer Savings and Loan Association, and as conservator of Pioneer Federal Savings and Loan Association, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 96-3204.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Nov. 30, 1998.

Gregory E. Gore, Counsel (Ann S. DuRoss, Assistant General Counsel, Thomas L. Hindes, Senior Counsel, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, with him on the brief), Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellant.

Charles M. Thomas (Charles H. Stitt and Kenton E. Snow with him on the brief), of Craft Fridkin & Rhyne, Kansas City, Missouri, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Before BRORBY, HOLLOWAY, and EBEL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment entered in favor of an insurer in a declaratory judgment action. The district court held that due to the late filing of proof of loss, recovery was barred under fidelity bonds issued to the savings and loan association. *National Union Fire Insurance Co. v. Resolution Trust Corp.,*923 F.Supp. 1402 (D.Kan.1996). The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as successor to the receiver for the savings and loan association, appealed.

Under the Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Act, K.S.A. 60-3201, *et seq.,*we certified to the Kansas Supreme Court the following question: “Does the failure by an insured to provide a proof of loss within the limit provided by a fidelity bond of the type involved here justify denial of coverage under the bond without the insurer showing that it has been substantially prejudiced by the untimely proof of loss?” The Supreme Court of Kansas, on the facts submitted to it by our court in the certification, held that the answer under Kansas law is “No.” *National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation,*264 Kan. 733, 957 P.2d 357 (Kan.1998).

In light of the response under Kansas law, which controls, the summary judgment entered in the instant case by the district court must be vacated, and the case must be re*658manded to that court for reconsideration and further proceedings.

It is so ordered and the mandate shall issue forthwith.
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

# AMOC gives Marines 24/7 additive manufacturing assistance 

By Monique Randolph, MCSC Office of Public Affairs and CommunicationMarine Corps Systems Command

                MARINE CORPS BASE QUANTICO, Va.  –              MARADMIN *Editor's note: The original story can be viewed on the Marine Corps Systems Command website.*

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

3D printingAdditive ManufacturingAdvanced Manufacturing Operations CellMarine Corps System Commandparts
March 29, 1996


The Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC  20549

Attention: Filing Desk, Stop 1-4

     Re:   CalEnergy Company, Inc. Form 10-K

Gentlemen:

     Submitted herewith via electronic transmission pursuant to EDGAR is the
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1995 of
CalEnergy Company, Inc. (the "Company").

     The Form 10-K (including exhibits) is also being filed with the New
York Stock Exchange and the Pacific Stock Exchange concurrently herewith.

                           Sincerely,



                           Douglas L. Anderson
                           Assistant General Counsel,
                           U.S. and Corporate

(10K.SEC)
UN PUBLISHED
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 un published 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 accep ting 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 c ould 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 b oth 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

a dequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
Exhibit 23.1





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS





As independent registered public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements Nos. 333-139592, 333-140372, 333-146856, and 333-147440 on Form S-1, Nos. 333-09917, 333-10117, 333-47098, and 333-131044 on Form S-3, Nos. 333-09909, 333-09911, 333-46086, 333-76812, 333-103101, 333-131051, 333-145454, 333-168606, 333-168607, 333-196937, 333-196940, and 333-204431  on Form S-8 and No. 333-200558 on Form S-4 of our reports dated November 30, 2016, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Amtech Systems, Inc. as of September 30, 2016 and 2015 and for the years ended September 30, 2016, 2015, and 2014, and with respect to the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of September 30, 2016, included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A.











/s/ MAYER HOFFMAN MCCANN P.C.Phoenix, ArizonaDecember 1, 2016