alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
The district court heard arguments from counsel and 

determined that an evidentiary hearing was not required because 

Cleveland's claim was not supported by the record. The district court 

noted that Cleveland "had been declared competent prior to entering his 

plea," and that his guilty plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily. 

The district court also found that the State was prejudiced by the delay in 

the filing of Cleveland's motion and that laches applied. Because of the 

absence of good cause and prejudice to overcome the procedural bars, and 

the further determination that Cleveland's motion lacked merit, we 

conclude that the district court did not err by denying his motion. 

Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

Pickering Saitta 

cc: Hon. Robert W. Lane, District Judge 

Chesnoff & Schonfeld 

Nye County District Attorney 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Nye County Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) I94Th
# C_2015016EN.01003102.xml

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 November 2014 — Energetický a průmyslový and EP Investment Advisors v Commission

(Case T-272/12) (1)

(Competition - Administrative procedure - Decision finding a refusal to submit to an inspection and imposing a fine - Article 23(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Presumption of innocence - Rights of the defence - Proportionality - Obligation to state reasons)

(2015/C 016/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Energetický a průmyslový holding a.s. (Brno, Czech Republic); and EP Investment Advisors s.r.o. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented initially by K. Desai, Solicitor, J. Schmidt and M. Peristeraki, and subsequently by J Schmidt, R. Klotz and M. Hofmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by A. Antoniadis and R. Sauer, and subsequently by R. Sauer and C. Vollrath, Agents)

Re:

Application for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2012) 1999 final of 28 March 2012 relating to a proceeding under Article 23(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (refusal to submit to an inspection) (Case COMP/39793 — EPH and Others).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the action;

| 2) | Orders Energetický a průmyslový holding a.s. and EP Investment Advisors s.r.o. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders Energetický a průmyslový holding a.s. and EP Investment Advisors s.r.o. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 250, 18.8.2012.

---
Before the Second Division,

April 30, 1943

No. 48245.

#### Petition 6361-R of Standard Fruit and Steamship Co. (New Orleans).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

An examination of the record disclosed that in entering the merchandise there was no intent on the part of the petitioner to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts. The petition was granted.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A18D0364. IN RE RONALD WYTTENBACH et al. 

Ronald Wyttenbach and Tiffany Wyttenbach filed a petition for the adoption

of the legal children of Maria Anne Mackiewicz and Richard Mackiewicz. Rahman

Thomas, who is the biological but non-legitimated father of the children, filed a

motion to intervene in the adoption on December 4, 2017. The trial court entered an

order terminating the Mackiewiczes’s parental rights and denying Thomas’s motion

to intervene on February 8, 2018. On February 23, 2018, the trial court entered an

order denying Thomas’s motion for additional time to file a notice of appeal and

denying his motion to review and access the adoption file. Thomas filed an

application for discretionary review of these orders on March 12, 2018.We, however,

lack jurisdiction. 

Ordinarily, a party seeking to appeal an order terminating parental rights must

file an application for discretionary appeal. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (12). However,

int his case, the adoption action remains pending in the trial court. See OCGA §

5-6-34 (a) (1) (providing for a direct appeal from a “final judgment[ ], that is to say,

where the case is no longer pending in the court below”). Thus, Thomas wasrequired

to follow the interlocutory appeal procedure of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). See Bailey v.

Bailey, 266 Ga. 832, 832-833 (471 SE2d 213) (1996); Scruggs v. Ga. Dept. of Human

Resources, 261 Ga. 587, 588-589 (1) (408 SE2d 103) (1991); Park v. Bailey, 329 Ga.

App. 569, 571 (765 SE2d 721) (2014); Gray v. Springs, 224 Ga. App. 427, 427 (481

SE2d 3) (1997). Because he did not do so, we lack jurisdiction to consider this

April 10, 2018
application, which is hereby DISMISSED.1

The Wyttenbachs’s motion to dismiss is DENIED as MOOT, and their motion

for sanctions is DENIED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

1 But see Rokowski v. Gilbert, 275 Ga. App. 305, 305 (1) (620 SE2d 509)

(2005) (explaining that a timely filed notice of appeal from a final judgment and

decree of adoption gave appellate court jurisdiction to consider previous orders

entered in case, including an order terminating parental rights).

04/10/2018
Exhibit 23.2

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



           We  hereby  consent  to  the   incorporation   by  reference  in  the
Registration  Statements on Forms S-8 (No.  333-66620),  (No.  333-66123),  (No.
333-66121),  (No.  333-66119) and (No.  033-63865) of ATC  Healthcare,  Inc. and
Subsidiaries of our report dated May 12, 2003, except for the fifth paragraph of
Note  7(a) as to which  the date is June 13,  2003,  relating  to the  financial
statements and financial statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.



                                                      PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Melville, New York
May 27, 2004
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 Gavella Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Harry J. Santoro, President, Chief
Executive Officer and 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:

        (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.



                               /s/ Harry J. Santoro
                              -------------------
                              Harry J. Santoro
                              President, Chief Executive Officer
                              and Chief Financial Officer


November 1, 2004
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 2186** 

IRINA YUROVA; GENADI YUROV , Petitioner s ,

v. LORETTA E. LYNCH , Attorney General , Respondent

.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

.

Submitted : June 12, 2015 Decided: June 18, 2015

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

. Philip R. Kuhn, BRIDGEHOUSELAW, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina , for Petitioner s . Benjamin C. Mizer , Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General , John W. Blakeley, Assistant Director, Kate D. Balaban , Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opin ions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM: Irina Yurova and her husband, Genadi Yurov , native s and citizen s of Uzbekistan, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying their motion to reconsider. We deny t he petition for review. The Petitioners had 30 days from the May 28, 2014, order to timely file a petition for review. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (2012 ). This time period is “jurisdictional in nature and must be construed with strict fidelity to [its] terms.” Stone v.
INS , 514 U.S. 386, 405 (1995). The filing of a motion to reopen or reconsider with the Board does not tol l or otherwise extend the 30

- day period for seeking review of the underlying order. Id. at 394. A petition for review from the den ial of a motion to reopen or reconsider , if it is not timely as to the underlying removal order, does not bestow jurisdiction to review the final order of removal. See Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales , 439 F.3d 109, 111 (2d Cir. 2006). Yurova’s October 30, 2014, petition for review is only timely as to the September 30, 2014, order denying reconsideration. The denial of a motion to reconsider is reviewed for abuse of discret ion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2015 ); Narine v. Holder , 559 F. 3d 246, 249 (4th Cir. 2009). A motion to reconsider asserts the Board made an error in its earlier decision and “shall state the reasons for the motion by specifying the errors

2of fact or law in the prior Board decision and shall be supported by pertinent authority.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1) (20 15 ). We will reverse a denial of a motion to reconsider “only if the Board acted arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law.” Narine , 559 F.3d at 249 (internal quotation marks omitted). We conclude the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reconsider. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argumen t would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED

3
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 Endo Networks,  Inc. (the "Company")
on Form  10-QSB  for the  period  ended  December  31,  2003 as  filed  with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"),  each of the undersigned,  in
the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies 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 operation of the Company.


Dated:  March 10, 2004

/s/ Peter B. Day
-------------------------------
Name:   Peter B. Day
Title:  Chief Executive Officer




<PAGE>
#### Bundell Shipping Co. et al. *v.*United States

No. 6944.

Entry No. 725453, etc.

Invoices dated Edinburgh, Scotland, October 14,1941, etc.

Certified October 14, 1941, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., November 21,1941, etc.

(Decided March 3, 1947)

*Lane, Young & Fox*for the plaintiffs.

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

Kincheloe, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, hereto ••attached and made a part thereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section •402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importers on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
EX-10.1



 





Exhibit 10.1




AMENDMENT NO. 2

to the

AMENDED AND RESTATED

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




          AMENDMENT (“Amendment No. 2”) dated the 5th day of September 2007, by and
between Polo Ralph Lauren Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Corporation”), and Roger N.
Farah (the “Executive”).




          WHEREAS, the Executive currently serves as President and Chief Operating Officer of the
Corporation pursuant to an Amended and Restated Employment Agreement by and between the Corporation
and the Executive dated July 23, 2002, as amended by Amendment No. 1, dated July 1, 2004 (the
“Employment Agreement”); and




          WHEREAS, the Corporation and the Executive wish to amend the Employment Agreement in certain
respects;




          NOW, THEREFORE, intending to be bound, the parties hereby agree as follows.




          1. The Employment Agreement is amended to add a new Section 4(h), to read as follows:





     (h) Air Travel. For security purposes, to the extent practicable, the
Executive and his family members, to and only to the extent such family members are
traveling with the Executive, shall use the Corporation’s private aircraft or other private
aircraft for any travel. For any expense (whether or not a business expense) incurred as a
result of the Executive’s use of private or commercial aircraft, the Executive shall be
reimbursed by the Corporation (with no tax gross up). For any such expense, the Executive
shall be entitled to reimbursement at the lesser of market rates or Executive’s
out-of-pocket cost.



          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Amendment No. 2 to be duly executed and
the Executive has hereunto set his hand, effective as of the date hereof.




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	POLO RALPH LAUREN CORPORATION

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Joel L. Fleishman
 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	EXECUTIVE

 	 
	 	/s/ Roger N. Farah
 	 
	 	Roger N. Farah
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION**     I, Edward A. Keible, Jr., certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Endwave Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have: (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.        Date: August 11, 2005 /s/ EDWARD A. KEIBLE, JR.   Edward A. Keible, Jr.   President and Chief Executive Officer
No. 42164.

#### Protests 839802-G/85885, etc., of R. Gerber & Co. et al. (Chicago, etc.).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 16400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 44404.

#### Protests 944910-G, etc., of Polamer Forwarding Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Stokby*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 343, C. D. 358) it was held that 10 percent allowance should have been made for the weight of the gelatinous material in question.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-9182) pertaining to theAmended and Restated 1997 Stock Option Plan of Global-Tech Appliances Inc. (the “Company”) of our report dated August 31 2002, except for the effects of the restatement detailed in notes 20, 21 and 27, for which the date is July 9, 2003,relating to the financial statements, which appears in this Form 20-F/A. 

 

PricewaterhouseCoopers 

Hong Kong 

 

September 14, 2005
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 90 (Thursday, May 8, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 26105]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-10130]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 [Docket Nos. RM05-25-000; RM05-17-000]


 Preventing Undue Discrimination and Preference in Transmission 
Service; Errata Notice

 April 30, 2008.
    On April 29, 2008, the Commission issued a Notice of Extension of 
Time in the above-referenced proceeding. In the second paragraph of the 
notice, change ``February 19, 2008'' to read ``February 19, 2009.'' The 
sentence should read as follows:

    Public utilities are also granted an extension of time to and 
including November 27, 2008, to develop, through the North American 
Energy Standards Review Board (NAESB), business practices that 
support the Revisions to the NERC reliability standards MOD-001, 
MOD-008, MOD-028, MOD-029, and MOD-030 and an extension of time to 
and including February 19, 2009, to develop, through NAESB, business 
practices that complement the revisions to the NERC reliability 
standard MOD-004.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-10130 Filed 5-7-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
From: Susan Miller [mailto:SMiller@bia.org]

Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 2:43 PM

To: Nizich, Sharon

Cc: Schimmel, Terry (Bricks - Phenix City); Garth Tayler

Subject: DLA/uncontrolled kilns

SharonHere is a quick rundown of the “top performing” DLA and uncontrolled- and what we believe are 

the reasons for eliminating these tests from your analyses

Kiln #

695- Lee Brick- plant is gone

696- Lee Brick- minimal sample volume not achieved (see previous email)

549- Gleason- significant combustion system modifications (see previous email from Terry 

Schimmel)

673/674- Hanson- sample volume unknown and “assumed” to be one in data table. Actual lower 

volume would mean concentration calculated below true value.

647- Glen Gery- new test report provided demonstrating DLA performance over time

662- Hanson Monroe- Initial MACT compliance test- suspect all new limestone (verifying)/slow 

push rate

583- Columbus Brick- Initial MACT compliance test- suspect all new limestone (verifying)- sample 

volume “assumed” to be one- actual lower volume would mean concentration calculated below true 

value

680- Henry Brick- Initial MACT compliance test- suspect all new limestone

665-Hanson- plant demolished (see previous email)

663- Hanson- plant demolished (see previous email)

649- Glen Gery- more recent test report provided demonstrating PM performance over time.

646- Glen Gery- more recent test report provided demonstrating PM performance over time.

571- Bowerston- true area source (see previous email)

770- Triangle Brick- Initial MACT compliance test on newly installed APCD- all new limestone

725- Pine Hall- Initial MACT compliance test on newly installed APCD- all new limestone

691- Redland Lawrenceville- Initial compliance test- all new limestone installed prior to test

769- Triangle Brick- Initial MACT compliance test on newly installed APCD- all new limestone

625- General Shale- Initial MACT compliance test on newly installed APCD- all new limestone

If you need more information on any of these- or any other kilns, please do hesitate to contact 

me. We can continue to work through the list if you believe this would help you, but we believe we 

have included all that could potentially be included in a MACT floor determination.

We do not agree that the exclusion of these sources impacts your proper decision to base the floor 

for the proposed standard on 12 percent of the number of sources in the category and not on 12% 

with stack data. EPA tested only DIFF sources in the Section 114 testing program in 2010 and 

2011 and acknowledged that these sources were the best performing sources. These tests are the 

only tests since the tests to develop the AP-42 to test for metals and mercury. 

susan

Susan J Miller
Vice President, Environment, Health & Safety

Brick Industry Association

311 South Academy Street

Cary, North Carolina 27511

919 380-2191

smiller@bia.org

When you talk, you are only repeating what you already know; but when you listen, you may learn 

something new. 

-Dalai Lama
Page 1 of 8
 

 

Page 2 of 8
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 3 of 8
Page 4 of 8
 

Page 5 of 8
 

 

 

Page 6 of 8
 

 

 

Page 7 of 8
Page 8 of 8