alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
p130209.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 13-0209 Focus Ready Draft 1/31/2013

ENGINEER: Choudhary \ EV PV (kg/yr):

Page 1p130209.eng

SAT (concerns) (01/18/2013): Migration to groundwater: Slow PBT rating: P2B1T1 Health: 2 Dermal, Inhalation Eco: 3 Water (All releases to water with a CC = 3 ppb)

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 1D

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS: Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER.

the aquatic environment. To this end, the company's toll Page 2p130209.eng

Page 3p130209.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 13-0209

Page 4p130209.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 13-0209

Page 5p130209.eng

Page 6
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-40207 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee

v. OMAR GONZALEZ-FERNANDEZ, also known as Omar Fernandez-Gonzalez, also known as Carlos Gonzalez-Hernandez, also known as Carlos Manuel Gonzalez-Hernandez, also known as Omar Hernandez-Gonzalez Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:07-CR-1456-ALL
Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Omar Gonzalez-Fernandez appeals the sentence imposed following his gui lty plea conviction for illegal reentry following a previous deportation. He argues that the district court’s written judgment of sentence conflicts with its oral pronouncement of sentence. The Government agrees. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D November 4, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 08-40207

2 At the sentencing hearing, the district court imposed a supervised release term oftwoyears. However, the written judgment reflects a three-year term of supervised release. Because the written judgment in this case conflicts with the oral pronouncement ofjudgment, the oral pronouncement controls. See United States v. Martinez, 250 F.3d 941, 942 (5th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, the case is remanded for the district court to amend its written judgment to conform to its oral pronouncement of sentence. See id. REMANDED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Statement of Financial Condition at June 30, 1997 (Unaudited) and the
Statement of Income for the six months ended June 30, 1997 (Unaudited)
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,147,201
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,178,818
<PP&E>                                          51,902
<DEPRECIATION>                                  21,966
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,299,204
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          297,647
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       108,392
<OTHER-SE>                                     893,165
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,299,204
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              (17,477)
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,815,626
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,833,103
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,833,103
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.17)
        

</TABLE>
#### Ralph Benzio AMOROSO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-1338.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 10, 1973.

*518Barry L. Garber, Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and J. Robert Olian, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PEARSON, Judge.

The appellant was found guilty of buying and receiving stolen property and was sentenced to six months in the county jail to be followed by a period of probation. The undisputed facts as they appear in the record are that the defendant and several other young persons participated in a larceny. They were friends of the victim’s son and had been invited to the house by the son. After the larceny, the only one of the group who could be located was the defendant. He returned a portion of the property which he admitted taking. Later he returned other property as to which he admitted, “I know who took it.” Upon this statement of facts, he was found guilty of buying, receiving, or concealing the stolen article which was last returned.

The only reasonable conclusion from the evidence is that the appellant was a principal in the larceny even though he was not the thief who actually took the last piece of jewelry from the house. Under these circumstances his crime cannot be converted to buying and receiving stolen property because the fact is that he returned more than he himself actually carried away. Cf. Adams v. State, 60 Fla. 1, 53 So. 451 (1910); Ketelsen v. State, Fla.App.1968, 211 So.2d 853.

Reversed and remanded with directions to discharge the appellant.
Cbo*:e ^ ^\ C 

### UNITED STATE S DEPARTMEN T OF TRANSPORTATIO N FEDERA L AVIAtlO N ADMINISTRATIO N

WASHINGTON , D C ALCA , Inc . e

t a l

V . 

### Miami-Dad

e County , Florid a Complainant s Responden

t FAA Docke t

16-08-0 5 NOTIC E OF EXTENSIO N OF TIM E Pursuan t to 1 4 CF R§ 16.11(a) , th e Director

doe s hereby extendth e dat e tha t th e Director' s initia l determinatio n wil l b e rendere d i n th e above-reference dcas e to Decembe r 11,2009 . A n extensio n i s necessar

y becaus e th e Agency require s additiona l tim e to revie w information i

t believe s i s essentia

l fo r afai r an dcomplet e hearin g of

th e matter . '- / 

### landall S . Fiert

z Directo r of Offic e o f Airpor t Complianc e an d Fiel d Operation s 

# GrJ . AG^;ir ^ Dat e

C 5

- I - C ICERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E

I HEREB Y CERTIF Y tha t o n Octobe r

B^ , 2009, 1 cause d t o b e place d i n th e Unite d State s mai l (firs t

clas s mail , postag e paid ) o r personall y delivered , atru e cop y o f th e foregoin g docimien t

addresse dto : Michae l A . Pizzi , Jr. , P.A . 1527 1 N W 60*

^ Avenu e Suit e 206 A Miam i Lakes , FL 3301 4

Counse l for

Complainant s Davi dM . Murra y Thoma s P . Abbott Assistan t County Attorney s Aviatio n Division P.O . Bo x 02550 4 Miami , FL 33102-550 4

Coxmse l for Responden t Cop y to : FAA Part 1 6 Airport

Proceeding s Docke t FA A Offic e o f

Airports , Complianc e an d Fiel d Operations , ACO-lO O



# UM^^ L forgerso n Offic e o f Airpor t Complianc e an d Fiel d Operation s
[No. 355-2.

Division Two.

November 2, 1971.]

#### Emma Johnson, *Appellant,*v. Florence C. Forbes, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Clark County, No. 47743, Robert D. McMullen, J., entered June 5, 1970. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.
#### RAILWAY EXPRESS AGENCY, INC., a Delaware corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida, Appellant, v. Jose A. MARTINEZ, Jr., Appellee.

No. 69-611.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 15, 1970.

Appeal dismissed.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23

- 1759

SAMUEL A. LYONS , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. ILEEN M. TICER GREENE, Former Lead Counsel for PMA Indemnity Insurance , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. Albert David Copperthite , Magistrate Judge. ( 1 :23

- cv - 00359

- ADC )

Submitted : November 2 1 , 2023 Decided: November 2 7 , 2023

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER , Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Samuel A. Lyons, Appellant Pro Se. Douglas A. Datt, KIERNAN TREBACH LLP, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-1759 Doc: 9 Filed: 11/27/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Samuel A. Lyons appeals the magistrate judge’s order granting Ileen M. Ticer
Greene’s motion to dismiss Lyons’ amended complaint. * We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the magistrate judge’s order. Lyons v.
PMA Indem

. Ins. , No. 1:23

- cv - 00359

- ADC (D. Md. July 11, 2023). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

* The parties consented to the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). USCA4 Appeal: 23-1759 Doc: 9 Filed: 11/27/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.1





NETWORK EQUIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Network Equipment Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 25, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Hubert A. J. Whyte, President and 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.



June 2, 2005



/s/ HUBERT A. J. WHYTE

Hubert A. J. Whyte

President and Chief Executive Officer
# C_2020215EN.01005801.xml

| 29.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 215/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/58

---

Action brought on 6 May 2020 — Steinel v EUIPO (GluePro)

(Case T-256/20)

(2020/C 215/67)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Steinel GmbH (Herzebrock-Clarholz, Germany) (represented by: M. Breuer and K. Freudenstei, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark GluePro — Application No 18 029 161

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 February 2020 in Case R 2516/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<PAGE>

<ARTICLE>           5

<LEGEND>
                    The Schedule contains summary financial 
                    information extracted from the financial
                    statements for Prudential Realty Acquisition 
                    Fund II, LP and is qualified in its entirety 
                    by reference to such financial statements
</LEGEND>

<RESTATED>          

<CIK>               0000752292
<NAME>              Prudential Realty Acquisition Fund II, LP
<MULTIPLIER>        1

<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-1996

<PERIOD-START>                  Jan-1-1996

<PERIOD-END>                    Dec-31-1996

<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-Mos

<CASH>                          1,074,383

<SECURITIES>                    0

<RECEIVABLES>                   490,096

<ALLOWANCES>                    0

<INVENTORY>                     0

<CURRENT-ASSETS>                1,564,479

<PP&E>                          0

<DEPRECIATION>                  0

<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  1,564,479

<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           440,125

<BONDS>                         0

<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0

<PREFERRED>                     0

<COMMON>                        0

<OTHER-SE>                      1,124,354

<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    1,564,479

<SALES>                         680,783

<TOTAL-REVENUES>                680,783

<CGS>                           0

<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0

<OTHER-EXPENSES>                793,002

<LOSS-PROVISION>                0

<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0

<INCOME-PRETAX>                 0

<INCOME-TAX>                    0

<INCOME-CONTINUING>             0

<DISCONTINUED>                  0

<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0

<CHANGES>                       0

<NET-INCOME>                    (112,219)

<EPS-PRIMARY>                   (3.58)

<EPS-DILUTED>                   0


</TABLE>
# C_2023127EN.01003402.xml

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 February 2023 — LG Electronics v EUIPO — ZTE Deutschland (V10)

(Case T-741/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark V10 - Absolute ground for refusal - Alphanumeric sign - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2023/C 127/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, South Korea) (represented by: M. Bölling, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: ZTE Deutschland GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: T.M. Müller and C. Sauerborn, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 14 September 2021 (Case R 2101/2020-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders LG Electronics, Inc. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders LG Electronics, Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 24.1.2022.

---
To: "Neil Anderson" <Anderson.Neil@epamail.epa.gov>, "Laura Parsons" <Parsons.Laura@epamail.epa.gov>, "Russell Wasem" <Wasem.Russell@epamail.epa.gov>, Cc: Bcc: Subject: Fw: Cancel Dangerous Rodenticides: EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0718, EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0955 From: Richard Keigwin/DC/USEPA/US - Tuesday 05/08/2012 06:23 PM

Steven Bradbury ----- Original Message ----- **From:** Steven Bradbury **Sent:** 05/08/2012 06:13 PM EDT **To:** Margie Fehrenbach; Karen Angulo; Richard Keigwin; Kelly Sherman **Subject:** Fw: Cancel Dangerous Rodenticides: EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0718, EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0955 ----- Forwarded by Steven Bradbury/DC/USEPA/US on 05/08/2012 06:12 PM -----

From: Brittany Campbell <candychick@me.com> To: Steven Bradbury/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 05/08/2012 06:11 PM Subject: Cancel Dangerous Rodenticides: EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0718, EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0955

I urge the Environmental Protection Agency to cancel all 20 homeowner rodenticide bait products recommended for cancellation in docket numbers EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0718 and EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0955. These rodenticides cause unreasonable harm to the environment and human health. The EPA has been compiling research since the early '90s on the hazards of these rodenticides and must act now to pull these poisons from the shelves. The agency has provided thorough research on the unnecessary poisonings caused by products such as d-CON and Hot Shot rodent baits. Numerous poisonings occur each year to sensitive wildlife species like San Joaquin kit foxes, bobcats, eagles and owls. Even worse, families are being sickened by "loose" rodent bait eaten by children and pets. Cancelling these dangerous rodenticides also benefits poor and minority communities. Data from the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene shows that most rodenticide poisonings occur in low-income groups. Enforcing structural standards for bait stations and pulling the most hazardous products from the market benefits non-English speaking residents who are less likely to understand the language on the required labels. I urge the EPA to stand up to pressure from rodenticide manufacturers Reckitt Benckiser, Liphatech and Spectrum Brands. These companies have had more than three years to voluntarily update their products and place safer alternatives on the market, but they have refused. Adding tamper-resistant bait stations to products would only cost pennies on the dollar to implement, and there are a number of less toxic alternatives on the market. Please take action now to cancel the 20 homeowner rodenticide bait products that pose unreasonable danger to the environment and human health.Thank you. Brittany Campbell 1773 S Garth Ave Los Angeles, CA 90035
# C_2021462EN.01002403.xml

| 15.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/24

---

Appeal brought on 12 May 2021 by Graanhandel P. van Schelven BV against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 24 March 2021 in Case T-306/19, Graanhandel P. van Schelven v Commission

(Case C-309/21 P)

(2021/C 462/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Graanhandel P. van Schelven BV (represented by: C. Almeida, advocaat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

By order of 28 September 2021, the Court of Justice (Ninth Chamber) held that the appeal is dismissed as manifestly unfounded and that Graanhandel P. van Schelven BV shall bear its own costs.

---
EXHIBIT 23.1







INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in  Registration  Statements Nos.
33-42222, 33-41542, 33-41543, 33-59187, 33-60901, 33-60591, 33-82474, 333-68399,
333-42394  and  333-95113 of Sierra  Health  Services,  Inc. on Forms S-8 of our
report dated February 13, 2001, except for Note 8, as to which the date is March
16,  2001,  appearing  in this  Annual  Report  on Form  10-K of  Sierra  Health
Services, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2000.





Las Vegas, Nevada
March 27, 2001
House Calendar No. 221

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 537

[Report No. 103–736]

RESOLUTION

Waiving points of order against the conference re30, 1995, and for other purposes. Agencies, for the fiscal year ending September fice of the President, and certain Independent United States Postal Service, the Executive Of- appropriations for the Treasury Department, the port to accompany the bill (H.R. 4539) making

SEPTEMBER 21, 1994

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
IV

House Calendar No. 221

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 537

[Report No. 103–736]

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the

bill (H.R. 4539) making appropriations for the Treasury Department,

the United States Postal Service, the Executive Office of the President,

and certain Independent Agencies, for the fiscal year ending September

30, 1995, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 21, 1994

Mr. BEILENSON, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

RESOLUTION

Waiving points of order against the conference report to

accompany the bill (H.R. 4539) making appropriations

for the Treasury Department, the United States Postal

Service, the Executive Office of the President, and certain Independent Agencies, for the fiscal year ending

September 30, 1995, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it

2 shall be in order to consider the conference report to ac3 company the bill (H.R. 4539) making appropriations for
2

HRES 537 RH

1 the Treasury Department, the United States Postal Serv2 ice, the Executive Office of the President, and certain

3 Independent Agencies, for the fiscal year ending Septem4 ber 30, 1995, and for other purposes. All points of order

5 against the conference report and against its consideration

6 are waived. The conference report shall be considered as

7 read.
**EXHIBIT 10.37**

 

**Summary Description of Director Compensation**

 

Each non-employee director of Community Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”), currently receives $500 per quarterly meeting in compensation forservice as director. Non-employee members of the Company’s Executive Committee, Nominating Committee, Executive Compensation Committee, Audit Committee and Pension and ESOP Administrative Committee receive a fee of $250 per meeting. Eachnon-employee director of the Company who is also a director of Community Bank (the “Bank”) receives a monthly fee of $1,500 plus $500 per meeting held in excess of one meeting per month. Non-employee members of the Bank’s ExecutiveCommittee, Audit Committee and Asset Quality Committee received $250 per meeting. Non-employee members of Community Bank’s Directors Credit Committee receive a monthly fee of $500. Each of the non-employee directors of 1st Community Credit Corporation, Community Insurance Corp. and Community Appraisals, Inc. receive a quarterly fee of $500.

 

On January 27, 2004, each non-employee director was granted anoption to purchase 25,000 shares of Company common stock at an exercise price of $5.35 per share, the fair market value of the stock on the date of the grant. 

 

The compensation of directors may be changed from time to time by the Board of Directors upon recommendation of the Compensation Committee withoutshareholder approval.