alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ATTACHMENT 1

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT 

NOTICE OF EXEMPTION 

TO: County Clerk 

 County of Ventura 

 800 South Victoria Avenue 

 Ventura, CA 93009 

FROM: Ventura County Air Pollution Control District 

 669 County Square Drive 

 Ventura, CA 93003 

DATE: April 8, 2008 

Project Title: Revisions to Rule 74.12, Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products 

Project Location -- Specific: District Wide 

Project Location -- City: See above Project Location -- County: Ventura County 

Description of Project: 

The project revises the reactive organic compound (ROC) limit for general air-dry onecomponent coatings and creates a new multi-component coating category. A limit for lab 

furniture coatings is deleted. Also, 25 grams per liter solvents are required for surface preparation, spray gun cleaning and general purpose cleanup. These revisions are required because, 

under the provisions of Health and Safety Code section 40914(b)(2), staff must provide for 

expeditious implementation of "every feasible measure" to reduce ozone precursor emissions. 

Name of Public Agency Approving Project:

 Ventura County Air Pollution Control District 

 Date Approved: April 8, 2008 

Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: 

 Ventura County Air Pollution Control District 

Exempt Status: 

 The revisions to Rule 74.12 are categorically exempt from the California Environmental 

Quality Act (CEQA) under Sections 15307 and 15308 of the state CEQA Guidelines and no 

exceptions to these exemptions apply. 

Reasons Why Project Is Exempt: 

 The revisions to Rule 74.12 are categorically exempt from the requirements of CEQA because 

reactive organic compound emissions from coating operations and solvent cleaning operations 

will be reduced with implementation of the revised rule. 

Contact Person: 

 Donald R. Price 

 Ventura County Air Pollution Control District 

 Telephone: (805) 645-1407 

Michael Villegas 

Air Pollution Control Officer
Exhibit 23

            Consents of Independent Public Accountants

G. BRAD BECKSTEAD
Certified Public Accountant
                                                330 E. Warm Springs
                                                Las Vegas, NV 89119
                                                       702.528.1984
                                                425.928.2877 (efax)





August 10, 2001


To Whom It May Concern:

The firm of G. Brad Beckstead, CPA, consents to the inclusion of my
report of August 10, 2001, on the Financial Statements of Media and
Entertainment.com, Inc. for the six months ending June 30, 2001, in
any  filings  which are necessary now or in the near future  to  be
filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission.

Signed,

/s/G. Brad Beckstead, CPA

G. Brad Beckstead, CPA
Court of General Sessions—New York County.

January, 1884.

#### PEOPLE *v.*BOYLE.

Security to keep the Peace.

The Court of General Sessions of the City and County of New York has no jurisdiction to discharge a prisoner committed by a police magistrate in default of giving the undertaking required by section 89 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to keep the peace.

Motion to discharge the defendant Thomas Boyle, who is in custody in default of giving an order taking to keep the peace.

*Peter B.*Olney, district attorney, for the people.

Rufus B. Cowing, City Judge.

It appears from the complaint upon which the proceedings were initiated, that the defendant, on the 18th of December, 1883, threatened to kill the complainant, his wife; and by the commitment, that the magistrate, before whom the proceedings were pending, committed the defendant to the city prison in default of bail, until he should be discharged by due course of law.

The counsel for the defendant claims and insists that this court is the proper forum for him to move for his discharge; while the district attorney insists that this court, under the circumstances, has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the motion.

Where a person has been arrested for threatening a breach of the peace, and has given an undertaking, as required by section 89 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there can be no doubt but that this court has jurisdiction to discharge the defendant under certain circumstances ; but I fail to find any where, in sections 84 to 99 inclusive, any express authority *55given to this court to entertain jurisdiction of the proceeding, where the defendant has been committed by the magistrate, in default of the giving the undertaking required by section 89.

Under the law of this State, as it existed before the Code, and as declared in the Revised Statutes, when a person was arrested and brought before the magistrate, charged with threatening a breach of the peace, Colby says, at pages 84 and 85 of his work, that there is no examination, or trial, of the party arrested; and that he is not permitted to be heard, either personally or by counsel; he must either enter into the undertaking or be committed. But sections 87 and 88, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have changed the law; so that the magistrate may proceed io examine the charge, and determine upon evidence, whether it is well founded, or not; and if not, may discharge the defendant.

It may be, that the legislature intended that this court should have power, to discharge the defendant, where he is committed for want of filing the undertaking, required by section 89, the same as where the undertaking is given. But if so intended, I find it nowhere so expressed, in words ; and therefore, inasmuch as it appears, that the defendant stands committed in default of giving the undertaking, required by section 89 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I have come to the conclusion, that this court has no power to discharge the defendant. The motion is denied.
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 Quarterly Report of Intellon Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Brian T.
McGee, Senior Vice President, Finance 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, to my knowledge:



| |  |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | - |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |                                                  
|--------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 13, 2008 |  | /s/ Brian T. McGee                               
|                      |  | Brian T. McGee                                   
|                      |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-7412

RYAN O. DAVIS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia

Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge.

(CA-98-1044-2)

Submitted: January 13, 2000 Decided: January 20, 2000

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ryan O. Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffrey Scott Shapiro, OFFICE OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Ryan O. Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1999). Davis’s case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge

recommended that relief be denied and advised Davis that failure to

file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate

review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.

Despite this warning, Davis failed to object to the magistrate

judge’s recommendation.

The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge’s

recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the

substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned

that failure to object will waive appellate review. See Wright v.

Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v.

Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Davis has waived appellate review by

failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. We accordingly deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. VI CT OR M AN UEL B OJ ORQU EZ ALVA RE Z, D e f

e n d an t - A p p e llan t. N o. 12- 10378 D. C . No . 2 : 0 9 - c r - 0 0 2 9 4 - L DG ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

N e va da L l oy d D . G e or ge , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d A pr i l 16, 2013 ** B efo re: C A N B Y , IK U T A , an dW A T F O R D , C i rcu i tJu d g es. V i ct or M anuel B oj orqu ez -A l vare z app ea l s f rom the 12 -m on th sent ence i m pos e d upon r e voc a t i on of s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n dw e a f f i rm. 

# FI LED APR22 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS12- 10378 2 B o jo r q u e z - A lv ar e z c o n te n d s th a t h is s e n te n c e is s ub s tan tiv e lyu n r e a s o n ab le i n l i ghtof

the f a c ttha t , a tthe t i m e of

s e nt e nc i ng, he ha d a l r e a dys e rve d a n 18- m onth s e nt e nc e f

orthe i m m i gr a t i on of

f e ns e tha ttr i gge r e d hi s r e voc a t i on. T he d istrict co u rt d idn o t ab u se it s d iscr etio n inim p o sin g B o jo rq u ez -A lv ar ez ’s s e n te n c e . See G al l

v. U ni ted States , 5 5 2 U .S . 3 8 , 5 1 ( 2 0 0 7 ) . T h e 1 2 - m o n th s e nt e nc e i s s ubs t ant i ve l yr e a s onabl e i n l i ghtof B oj or que z - A l var e z ’ s f

a i l ur e t o be d e te rr e dan db r e a c h o f

th e c o u rt’s tru s t. See 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 3 ( e ) ; U ni ted States v. Si m tob , 48 5 F . 3d 10 58 , 10 62 -63 (9th C i r. 20 07 ). AF F I RME D.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF NON-INVASIVE MONITORING SYSTEMS, INC. FOR THE YEAR ENDED
JULY 31, 1996, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1996
<CASH>                                         189,092
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  632,542
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    337,280
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,175,592
<PP&E>                                         630,921
<DEPRECIATION>                                 570,595
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,515,076
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          685,998
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           62,048
<PREFERRED>                                        100
<COMMON>                                       124,398
<OTHER-SE>                                    (142,532)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,515,076
<SALES>                                      1,712,248
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,712,248
<CGS>                                        1,340,728
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,153,350
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                46,962
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (394,140)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (394,140)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (394,140)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
(Reap. Dec. 9114)

#### Curt L. Sterner Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 912407, etc.

(Decided March 28, 1958)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

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

Lawrence, Judge:

When the appeals for a reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” attached to and made part of this decision, were called for hearing, there was no appearance on behalf of plaintiff.

An examination of the official record discloses no reason for disturbing the presumptively correct value for the merchandise found by the appraiser.

I, therefore, find and hold the proper dutiable value of the merchandise covered by these appeals to be the value found by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Case No. 5,640.

#### GOULD v. LITTLE.

[See Case No. S,395.]
#### Gildesgame Corp. et al. *v.*United States

No. 7695.

Invoices dated Hudson, Quebec, Canada, March 11, 1942, etc.

Certified March 11, 1942, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., March 16, 1942, etc.

Entry No. 744298, etc.

*439(Decided April 11, 1949)

*Brooks & Brooks (Frederick W. Brooks*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

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

Cole, Judge:

This case concerns tbe proper dutiable value of woven wool fabrics exported from tbe Province of Quebec, Canada, and entered at tbe port of New York.

Tbe case is before me on a written stipulation wherein tbe parties agree tbat tbe issues presented bere are tbe same in all material respects as those which were before tbe court in *C. J. Tower & Sons*v. *United States,*21 Cust. Ct. 314, Reap. Dec. 7624, tbe record in which was incorporated by consent.

Tbe cited case found tbat an 8 per centum Canadian sales tax was not part of statutory foreign value, section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by tbe Customs Administrative Act of 1938 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (c)).

Undisputed facts establish tbat tbe proper basis for appraisement of tbe present merchandise is export value, as defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (d)), and tbat such dutiable value for tbe items in question is tbe appraised value, less tbe addition of tbe 8 per centum Canadian sales tax made by tbe importers on entry because of advances by tbe appraiser in similar cases. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
#### Allied Purchasing Corp. et al. *v.*United States

No. 6883.

Entry No. 701408, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, April 21, 1942, etc.

Certified April 28, 1942, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., July 18, 1942, etc.

(Decided February 17, 1947)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn (Hadley S. King*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

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

Cole, Judge (Abstract):

These appeals for reappraisement of various items of merchandise concern 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.

*392The agreed set of facts, embodied in the stipulation of submission, establishes that export value, section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (d)) is the proper basis for appraisement of the instant merchandise, and that such statutory values of the articles in question are the appraised values, less additions made by the importers on entry because of advances in similar cases.
# C_2012157EN.01000802.xml

| 2.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 157/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 157/8

---

Action brought on 20 March 2012 — Interroll v OHIM (Inspired by efficiency)

(Case T-126/12)

2012/C 157/14

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Interroll Holding AG (Sant’ Antonino, Switzerland) (represented by R. Böhm, lawyer)

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 12 January 2012 (Case R 1280/2011-1); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 January 2012 (Case R 1280/2011-1);

| — | 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 ‘Inspired by efficiency’ (application No 9 725 359) for goods and services in classes 6, 7, 9, 20, 35, 39 and 42.

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: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009 as the trade mark applied for has distinctive character and is not descriptive of the goods and services at issue in the proceedings.

Pleas in law:

---
#### William ROBERTSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 97-4012.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 21, 1998.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Allen J. DeWeese, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Debra Rescigno, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant William Robertson was tried by jury and convicted of carrying a concealed firearm and possession of marijuana. He challenges the pre-trial order denying his motion to suppress the firearm and marijuana seized during a “buy-bust” operation. We find that the trial court properly denied appellant’s motion to suppress upon its finding that appellant was not merely a bystander but an active participant in the sale of drugs to an undercover officer. Appellant’s conduct in questioning the identity of the undercover officer prior to the sale to ascertain whether he was a policeman and then directing his companion to “go ahead” and sell the marijuana to the officer furnished a founded suspicion for the stop that led to his arrest for the charged offenses. *See State v. Walls,*585 So.2d 1187 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); *Kearse v. State,*384 So.2d 272 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); *State v. Stevens,*354 So.2d 1244 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978).

We further find that appellant was properly tried in “Division FS”, a criminal court section presided over by senior judges, which he argues was improperly created by administrative order of the Chief Judge of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit rather than by local rule approved by the Supreme Court. *See Heaton v. State,*711 So.2d 1157 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); *Mann v. Chief Judge of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit,*696 So.2d 1184 (Fla.1997).

AFFIRMED.

POLEN, STEVENSON and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
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

# 60th Anniversary: Associate Lori Phillips shares thoughts on decades of service with agency

DLA Land and Maritime Public Affairs

                COLUMBUS, Ohio  –              
DLA Land and Maritime’s Lori Phillips talks about her history with the agency for DLA's 60th Anniversary in this video.

 

05:38VIDEO  | 05:38 |In Their Own Words Lori Phillips, DLA Land and Maritime, DLA 60th Anniversary Interview

----

 

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

DLA 60th AnniversaryDLA 60th Anniversary L&M