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

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1275 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

7172 North Tongass Highway, Ward Cove, Alaska, as the ‘‘Alice R. 

Brusich Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 21, 2005 

Mr. STEVENS (for himself and Ms. MURKOWSKI) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 7172 North Tongass Highway, Ward Cove, 

Alaska, as the ‘‘Alice R. Brusich Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. ALICE R. BRUSICH POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 7172 North Tongass Highway, 

6 in Ward Cove, Alaska, shall be known and designated as 

7 the ‘‘Alice R. Brusich Post Office Building’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 
2 

•S 1275 IS

1 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

2 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Alice R. Brusich Post 

3 Office Building’’. 

Æ
#### D. J., a juvenile v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-650.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 21, 1978.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Kurt Marmar, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Ira N. Loewy, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before HAVERFIELD, C. J., and HEN-DRY and NATHAN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order adjudicating D. J., a juvenile, delinquent on a charge of petit larceny, and placing him under the supervision of the Florida Division of Youth Services. The sole point on appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence. *200After a careful review of the record in the light of the argument and briefs of counsel, we find that there was competent substantial evidence to support the trial judge’s conclusions, and to support the adjudication of delinquency. *Crum v. State,*172 So.2d 24 (Fla.3d DCA 1965); *Starling v. State,*263 So.2d 645 (Fla.3d DCA 1972); *H. D. v. State,*348 So.2d 1159 (Fla.3d DCA 1976).

Affirmed.
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 MI GU E L R E YE S - C AR R E ON , P e titio n e r- A p p e llan t, v. B R I A N W I L L I A M S , W ar de n and AT T ORNE Y G E NE R AL F ORT HE S T AT E OF NE VA DA , R esp o n d en t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 09- 16416 D . C. N o . 2 : 0 8 - c v - 0 0 5 9 1 - J CM 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 J a m e s C . M a han, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r13, 2010 ** B efo re: S IL V E R M A N , C A L L A H A N , an dN . R . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. N evada s t at e pri soner M i gu elR ey es -C arre on appeal s pro se fr om the di stri ct c o u rt’s o r d e rd is m is s in g h is 2 8 U .S .C § 2 2 5 4 h ab e a s p e titio n a s u n tim e ly . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u an tt o 2 8 U . S. C. § 2 2 5 3 , a n dw e a f f i rm. 

# FI LED

OC T 07 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 16416 2 R e y e s - C arr e o n c o n te n d s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt s h o u ldn o t h a v e d is m is s e dh is p e titio n a s u n tim e lyf

ile db e c au s e h e r e lie do n in c o rr e c t a d v ic e f r o m a n “a s s is tan t” in h is p r is o n law lib r ary . T h is c o n te n tio n la c k s m e r it. See Mi ra n da v. Ca stro , 292 F . 3d 10 63 , 10 66 -68 (9th C i r. 20 02 ) ( rul i ng thatequi t abl e t ol l i ng w as no tw arrant ed w here a s ec t i on 22 54 pet i t i on erre l i ed on i ncorrec tadvi ce of form ercoun se l be c aus e pe t i t i one rha d no r i ghtt o a s s i s t anc e c ouns e l r e gar di ng pos t - c onvi c t i on re l i ef ). R e y e s - C arr e on’ s othe rc ont e nt i on a dva nc e d, c onc e rni ng hi s l i m i t e d l angua ge ab ilitie s , la c k s m e r it. See Mendo za v. Carey , 449 F . 3d 1065, 1070 ( 9th C i r . 2006) ( “[ A ] n o n - E n g lis h - s p e a k in g p e titio n e rs e e k in g e q u itab le to llin g m u s t, a t a m in im u m , d e m o n s tr a te th a t . . . h e w a s u n ab le , des p ite d ilig e n t e

ffo r ts , t o p rocure ei ther l egalm at er i al s i n h i s ow n l angu age or transl at i on as si st ance fr om an i nm at e, l i brary per sonn el , or other s ou rc e. ”) (e m ph as i s a dd ed). R e y e s - C arr e on’ s m ot i on f orappoi ntm e ntof

c ouns e l i s de ni e d. W e c ons true R e y e s - C arr e on’ s a ddi t i ona l a r gum e nt s a s am ot i on t o e xpa nd th e c e rtif ic a te o f ap p e a lab ility . S o c o n s tru e d , th e m o tio n is d e n ie d . See 9 th Ci r . R. 2 2 - 1 ( e ) ; s e e al

s o Hi i v ala v . W

ood , 19 5 F . 3d 10 98 , 11 04 -05 (9th C i r. 19 99 ) ( per curi am ). A FFI R M ED .09- 16416 3
# C_2015138EN.01001202.xml

| 27.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 4 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the administratīvā rajona tiesa, Rīgas tiesu nams — Latvia) — ‘Oliver Medical’ SIA v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

(Case C-547/13) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Headings 8543, 9018 and 9019 - Laser and ultrasonic appliances and their parts and accessories))

(2015/C 138/15)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Referring court

Administratīvā rajona tiesa, Rīgas tiesu nams

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘Oliver Medical’ SIA

Applicant:

Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff as amended, successively, by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1214/2007 of 20 September 2007, Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008, Commission Regulation (EC) No 948/2009 of 30 September 2009, Commission Regulation (EU) No 861/2010 of 5 October 2010 and Commission Regulation (EU) No 1006/2011 of 27 September 2011 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine whether goods, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, must be classified as medical instruments or appliances, under heading 9018 of the Combined Nomenclature, or as mechano-therapy appliances, under heading 9019 thereof, or rather as electrical apparatus, having an individual function, under heading 8543 thereof, it is appropriate to take account of all the relevant factors in the case, to the extent that they relate to characteristics and objective properties inherent to those goods. Among the relevant factors, it is necessary to assess the use for which the product is intended by the manufacturer and the methods and place of its use. Thus, the fact that the product is intended to treat one or more different pathologies and that that treatment must be carried out in an authorised medical centre and under the supervision of a practitioner are indications capable of establishing that that product is intended for medical use. Conversely, the fact that a product mainly brings about aesthetic improvement, that it may be operated outside a medical environment, for example in a beauty parlour, and without the intervention of a practitioner are indications that that product is not intended for medical use. The dimensions, weight and technology used are not decisive factors for the classification of goods, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, under heading 9018 of the Combined Nomenclature.

---

(1)  OJ C 377, 21.12.2013.

1

---
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 Cyberads, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") the undersigned hereby
certifies pursuant to 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 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: January 30, 2006           CYBERADS, INC.

                                 By: /s/ JEFF CRISWELL
                                 --------------------------
                                 Jeff Criswell, President,
                                 Chief Executive Officer
#### Billy TAYLOR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-1800.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 16, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 11, 1977.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Frank B. Kessler, Asst. Public Defender, and Lester A. Lewis, Legal Intern, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Harry M. Hipler, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals his conviction for resisting arrest with violence. The sole issue is whether the court erred in refusing to give a jury instruction requested by the defendant. We find no error and affirm.

In this case the defendant requested an instruction which in our opinion is inadequate and incomplete. The trial court is not required to give such an instruction, nor is it obligated to re-write the requested instruction to make it right. The jury was correctly instructed on the elements of the crime charged and on what the State had to prove. We find no fundamental error in the instructions as given.

AFFIRMED.

ALDERMAN, C. J., and CROSS and DAUKSCH, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 10.4

                            Stock Repurchase Agreement

     This Stock Repurchase Agreement ("Agreement") is entered into on May 5,
2006 between Hajin Jhun ("Jhun") and Franklin Wireless Corp ("Franklin"). Jhun
desires to sell, and Franklin desires to purchase, the 20,000,000 shares of
Franklin Common Stock which. Jhun was purchased.

     NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:

     1. Jhun agrees to reconvey to Franklin, and waiver any rights of ownership
     in, the 20,000,000 shares of Franklin Common Stock which he owned.

     2. In consideration for the agreements and representations set forth in
     paragraph 1, above, Franklin agrees to pay to Jhun the sum of One Hundred
     Thousand Dollar(s) ($100,000.00). This sum being calculated at 20,000,000
     shares times $0.005 per share. Jhun acknowledges receipt of these funds,
     and agrees that they constitute adequate consideration for those agreements
     and representations.

     3. Jhun warrants that he has the full power and authority to enter into
     this Agreement and to carry out is terms and that it has not previously
     assigned, sold, or otherwise pledged or encumbered any right, title or
     interest in the Franklin Common Stock referred to above. Jhun acknowledges
     that he has the right to legal counsel, and that he has executed this
     Agreement upon his own independent judgment and without any representation,
     express or implied, of any kind of nature from any other party. Jhun agrees
     to execute such additional documents and take such additional actions as
     are reasonably necessary to effectuate the purpose of this Agreement.

     IN WITHNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of
the date set forth above.

     /s/ Hajin Jhun  Dated: May 5, 2006
     --------------


     /s/ OC Kim
     ----------
     Franklin Wireless Corp. Dated  5/15/06
**EXHIBIT    32.2** **CERTIFICATION    OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER****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 on    Form 10-K    of Hudson Valley Holding Corp. (the “Company”) for the    year ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities    and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the    “Report”), I, Stephen R. Brown, Senior Executive Vice    President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer 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/ Stephen R. Brown        Stephen R. Brown*Senior Executive Vice President,*
!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Lakeside Village

Nottely Lake Estates

Eagle

Bend

Galloway

Nottely Shores

Lakemont

Village

Nottely

Falls

Estates

Ivylog Creek

Nottely River

U.S.

Forest

Service

34

22

21

21

20

33

19

33

17

!(18

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Lakeside Village

Nottely Lake Estates

Eagle

Bend

Galloway

Nottely Shores

Lakemont

Village

Nottely

Falls

Estates

Ivylog Creek

Nottely River

U.S.

Forest

Service

34

22

21

21

20

33

19

33

17

18

\\alismurphy\home\mprlm\projects\landplan\maps\Nottely_land_plan\Nottely_land_plan_for_web.mxd

/

Tile: B3

Jul 24, 2008 Nottely Reservoir

Land Management Plan

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000

Feet
No. 00-6679.

#### Hall *v.*North Carolina.

Sup. Ct. N. C. Certiorari denied.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

_________________________________ 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

October 11, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 125250(60) Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 SC: 125250 

v COA: 242050 

Oakland CC: 01-177534-FC 

NICHOLAS JAMES JACKSON, 

Defendant-Appellee/ant. 

 On order of the Chief Justice, the motion by Wayne County Prosecutor for 

leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae is considered, and it is DENIED. 

cc101105 

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. 

October 11, 2005 

Clerk
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

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

#  A bird’s eye view from a Blackhawk Helicopter

By Commentary by Erik Wetterhall, DLA Aviation Customer Operations DirectorateDLA Aviation Public Affairs

                RICHMOND, Virginia  –              

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

Warfighter FirstStragetic Engagement
From: "Bober, Katarzyna" <Katarzyna.Bober@Honeywell.com>

To: Margaret Sheppard/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 01/11/2010 02:01 PM

Subject: 1234ze SNAP applications

Dear Margaret,

When we talked on the phone the other day, you mentioned that you’re putting together a 

compendium of approved substitutes for R-22 and 142b that will be published in the Federal 

Register. You asked whether Honeywell is considering any other foam blowing uses for HFO1234ze that we have not applied for yet. I consulted the business and this is the response I got:

Absolutely!! Ultimately I’d like to see it approved for all foam uses, but here’s my list of priority

Integral Skin Foam – should not have significantly higher emission profile than already approved 

applications.

Polyolefin foam – should have same emission profile as XPS, which was approved.

Rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated Boardstock – should have similar emission 

profile to other polyurethane foams already approved

Rigid polyurethane slabstock and other– should have similar emission profile to other 

polyurethane foams already approved

PS Sheet – This is likely to be 100% emissive at point of manufacture, so we may need to do 

some calculations. It is unlikely that we would get any actual plant trial data any time soon.

Flexible foam - This is likely to be 100% emissive at point of manufacture, so we may need to do 

some calculations. It is unlikely that we would get any actual plant trial data any time soon.

Phenolic Insulation Board– should have similar emission profile to other polyurethane foams 

already approved

Could you please let me know how we should proceed to get these uses added to our list?

Thank you,

Kasia
Exhibit 32.2 - SECTION 906 CFO CERTIFICATION


                        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 Absolute Glass Protection, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report").
I, Michael I. Kling, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

               (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/ Michael I. Kling
----------------------------
    Michael I. Kling
    Chief Financial Officer


Date  February 18, 2005
      -----------------
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

# Smart buyers, common sense key to equipment readiness says leader of Army’s combat ground systems 

By Beth Reece

                COLUMBUS, Ohio   –              

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

ArmyStrategic EngagementWarfighter FirstBetter Buying Powersuppliersindustrypartnershipsground combat systemstanksBradley