alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
The State of

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 1, 2015

No. 04-15-00476-CR

David HUNT,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014CR8842B

Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant’s brief was originally due November 16, 2015, but was not filed. On 

November 23, 2015, this court notified David A. Cuellar, appellant’s counsel of record, of the 

deficiency prior to sending out a formal notice to that effect. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b)(2). On 

November 24, 2015, Mr. Cuellar responded by letter, informing the court that on August 5, 2015, 

he filed in the trial court a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel, and on August 11, 2015, the trial 

court granted the motion. Mr. Cuellar included a copy of the trial court’s order granting his 

motion with his letter to this court. On November 25, 2015, the district clerk filed a 

supplemental clerk’s record, which included a copy of the motion to withdraw and the trial 

court’s order granting the said motion. The supplemental clerk’s record also included a copy of 

an order appointing C. Wayne Huff to represent appellant on appeal. Mr. Huff was appointed on 

November 24, 2015. 

Accordingly, we ORDER C. Wayne Huff to file appellant’s brief in this case no later 

than December 31, 2015. 

We further order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on appellant and all 

counsel. 

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 1st day of December, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
No. 40486.

#### Protests 904420-G (A), etc., of Brown & Kruger, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

On the records presented the protests were overruled.
Exhibit 32.3


SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


In connection with the Annual Report of Strategic Hotels & Resorts, Inc. (the “ Company ”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “ Report ”), I, Raymond L. Gellein, Jr., 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.

Dated: March 12, 2014


/s/ Raymond L. Gellein, Jr.Raymond L. Gellein, Jr.Chief Executive Officer
# C_2013171EN.01002301.xml

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/23

---

Action brought on 19 April 2013 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-211/13)

2013/C 171/45

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Mölls and W. Roels, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by adopting and retaining provisions under which only a low tax-free allowance is granted when inheritance and gift tax are applied to immoveable property situated in Germany if the donor or the deceased person and the acquiring party were resident in another Member State at the time of the inheritance or gift, whereas a considerably higher tax-free allowance is granted if at least one of the two parties concerned was resident in Germany at that time, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by adopting and retaining provisions under which only a low tax-free allowance is granted when inheritance and gift tax are applied to immoveable property situated in Germany if the donor or the deceased person and the acquiring party were resident in another Member State at the time of the inheritance or gift, whereas a considerably higher tax-free allowance is granted if at least one of the two parties concerned was resident in Germany at that time, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 TFEU;

| — | order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The taxation of inheritances and gifts is mitigated under German law by relatively high tax-free allowances, particularly in the case of inheritances and gifts between spouses, between parents and children and between certain relatives. These high tax-free allowances are, however, applicable only if Germany exercises an unrestricted right to tax whereas only a low, flat-rate tax-free allowance is applicable if the right to tax is restricted. According to the criteria which the Court of Justice set out in Mattner
   (1), those rules are incompatible with Article 63 TFEU.

Mattner

1

---

(1)  Judgment in Case C-510/08 Mattner [2010] ECR I-3553.

1

Mattner

---
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 144 (Monday, July 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 40334]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-19810]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[A-533-502]


Certain Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipes and Tubes From India; 
Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of New Shipper Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of extension of time limit of new shippers review.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is extending the 
time limit for final results in the new shippers review of the 
antidumping duty order on certain welded carbon steel standard pipes 
and tubes from India, covering the period May 1, 1995, through April 
30, 1996. We are extending the time limit because we have determined 
that this review is extraordinarily complicated, as provided for in the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 28, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Davina Hashmi or Kristie Strecker, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 
DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4733.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On June 27, 1996, the Department initiated a new shippers review 
covering the period May 1, 1995, through April 30, 1996. We published 
the preliminary results on May 1, 1997 in the Federal Register. The 
final results are currently due to be issued on July 30, 1997.
    Under section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act, if the Department 
determines that a new shippers review is extraordinarily complicated, 
the Department may extend the deadline for issuing the final results of 
review up to 150 days after the date the preliminary determination was 
issued. In the instant case, the Department has determined this review 
is extraordinarily complicated due to numerous complex cost-accounting 
and level-of-trade issues and the fact that the review involves the 
analyses of two companies (see Memorandum from Richard W. Moreland to 
Robert S. LaRussa, Recommended Extension of Time Limit for Final 
Results, July 18, 1997). Therefore, in accordance with section 
751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act, the Department is extending the time limit 
for the final results to August 29, 1997.
    Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under 
administrative protective order in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34 (b). 
This extension is in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the 
Act.

    Dated: July 21, 1997.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-19810 Filed 7-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-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 Iowa Telecommunications Services, Inc., (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008 (the Report), I, Alan L. Wells, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 results of operations of the Company.



|                  |  |  |  |                                                                                                    
|----------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 1, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ Alan L. Wells                                                                                  
|                  |  |  |  | Alan L. Wells                                                                                      
|                  |  |  |  | President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board Iowa Telecommunications Services, Inc.
(Reap. Dec. 9722)

#### Variable Condenser Corp. Globe Shipping Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 769783.

*745(Decided June 10, 1960)

Plaintiffs not represented by counsel.

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

Lawrence, Judge.

There was no appearance on behalf of plaintiffs when the above-enumerated appeal for a reappraisement was called for hearing. The court thereupon ordered the case submitted.

It is provided by the rules of the court that in such an instance; after the opposite party has had an opportunity to present evidence on the issues, the case may be decided by the court on the record before it.

Accordingly, I have examined the record in the present appeal for a reappraisement and find nothing therein which tends in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness which attaches to the decision of the appraiser. I find and hold, therefore, that the proper value of the merchandise is the value returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
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

# DLA police officer receives award for life saving efforts

By Matthew Mahoney, DLA Distribution Public Affairs 

                NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa.  –              
Defense Logistics Agency Police Officer, Sergeant Matthew Bednego, administered life-saving CPR while responding to an emergency call April 12 at Defense Distribution Center Susquehanna in New Cumberland, Pennsylvania.

Arriving on scene as the initial emergency responder, Bednego assessed the patient, an employee in cardiac arrest with no pulse and not breathing, and took over resuscitation efforts from the patient’s coworker until emergency medical personnel arrived. Bednego’s efforts are credited as being critical to the successful revival and stabilization of the patient.

“Sergeant Bednego is an asset to the DLA Police Department and the Installation Community,” said DLA Police Chief Douglas Schraeder.For his swift response and life-saving actions that day, Bednego received the DLA Meritorious Civilian Service Award.

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

DLAinstallationemergency servicesEMSLife Saving
(Reap. Dec. 9909)

#### Theo. L. Stern & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 787875, etc.

*579(Decided February 2, 1961)

*Jordrni & Klingaman*for the plaintiffs.

*George S. Leonard,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, are before me for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the plaintiffs and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States that the market value or the price at the time of exportation to the United States of the merchandise covered by the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the schedule hereto attached and made a part hereof, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States was the appraised value less the amount added to meet advances by the appraiser in similar cases, and that there was no higher foreign value.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the issue is the same as in *Paramount Import Co., Inc., et al.*v. *United States,*Reap. Dec. 9697 and that the record in said case may be incorporated herein.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that these appeals for re-appraisement are submitted on this stipulation.

In the incorporated case, it was held that the amount paid a foreign commissionaire for services rendered in connection with the purchase of merchandise in the foreign market and which amount did not inure to the benefit of the seller was a buying commission and, therefore, was not a part of the dutiable value of the merchandise.

On the agreed facts and following my cited decision on the law, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question is export value, as defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and hold that such statutory value therefor is the appraised value, less the amount added to meet advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Deadlines for Boiler (March 2011) Rules

Boiler MACT  Compliance dates o Existing affected units

– March 21, 2014 o New affected units - May 20, 2011 or upon startup , whichever is later  Notifications o Initial Notification  Existing

– no later than 120 day s after May 20, 2011 (i.e., Sept 19, 2011)  New (after May

20, 2011)

– not later than 15 day s after startup o Initial Notification of Compliance Status  Within 60 days after completion of compliance tests  No Action Assurance (NAA) o Issued

– February

7, 2012 o Exerc ise its discretion to not pursue enforcement actions for violations of certain notification deadlines.  “Failure to submit a complete Initial Notification by the dates required under the Major Source Boiler MACT (see 40 CFR §63.7545(b) & (c))” o NAA applies o nl y to the timeliness, not the underlying requirements o Remains in effect until (1) December 31, 2012, or (2) the effective date of the final reconsideration Boiler MACT rule, whichever occurs earlier. Boiler Area Source Rule  Compliance dates o Existing affected boilers subject to tune - up requirement

– March 21, 201 2 o Existing affected boilers subject to emission limits

– March 21, 2014 o New affected units - May 20, 2011 or upon startup , whichever is later  Notifications o Initial Notification  Existing

– no later than 120 day s after May 20, 2011 (i.e., Sept 19, 2011)  New (after May

20, 2011)

– not later than 1 20 days after startup o Initial Notification of Compliance Status  Within 120 after the applicable compliance date, or within 60 day s after comple tion of compliance tests  No Action Assurance (NAA) o Issued

– March 13 , 2012 o Exercise its discretion to not pursue enforcement actions for failure to complete the required tune - up by

March 21, 2012 . o NAA applies onl y to the timeliness of the tune - up , not the underlying requirements o Remains in effect until (1) October 1 , 2012, or (2) the effective date of the final reconsideration of the Area Source Boiler Rule, whichever is earlier.
----

| 1.   | the      Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31,      2007 (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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in all      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of      the Company. |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  Date:  March      27, 2008 | /s/  GRAHAM      HOOD  |                                              |   |
|--------------------------------------------|----------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                       |                             | Graham      HoodChief Executive      Officer |   |   |

|  Date:  March      27, 2008 | /s/  MARK      IRION  |                                        |   |
|--------------------------------------------|---------------------------------|---------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                       |                            | Mark      IrionChief      Financial Officer |   |   |

----
Exhibit 32   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 Shandong Zhouyuan Seed and Nursery Co., Ltd (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Chief Executive Officer, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:  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.   Date:  May 19, 2009                     /s/ Zhigang Wang ------------------------------- Zhigang Wang, CEO & CFO
## IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

February 9, 2024 SC-2024-0001 Ex parte Khiry D. White PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (In re: Khiry D. White v. State of Alabama) (Cleburne Circuit Court: CC-22-154 and CC-22-155; Criminal Appeals: CR-2023-0220).

CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT WHEREAS, the petition for writ of certiorari in the above referenced cause has been duly submitted and considered by the Supreme Court of Alabama and the judgment indicated below was entered in this cause on February 9, 2024: Writ Denied. No Opinion. Wise, J. -- Parker, C.J., and Sellers, Stewart, and Cook, JJ., concur. NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Rule 41, Ala. R. App. P., IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this Court's judgment in this cause is certified on this date. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, unless otherwise ordered by this Court or agreed upon by the parties, the costs of this cause are hereby taxed as provided by Rule 35, Ala. R. App. P.

I, Megan B. Rhodebeck, certify that this is the record of the judgment of the Court, witness my hand and seal.

Clerk, Supreme Court of Alabama