alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Commonwealth vs. Mark E. Magnuson.

No. 95-P-29.

August 9, 1995.

*Motor Vehicle,*Operating under the influence. *Practice, Criminal,*Double jeopardy. *Constitutional Law,*Double jeopardy.

The Commonwealth appeals from an order of a District Court judge dismissing a complaint for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (OUI). An earlier complaint charging the same offense was dismissed in these circumstances: the Commonwealth, realizing that the defendant had a previous OUI conviction, filed a pretrial motion to dismiss the pending OUI complaint so as to replace it with a new complaint charging OUI, second offense. The defendant disputed the applicability of the enhanced penalties applicable under G. L. c. 90, § 24, to second offenses but agreed to the dismissal provided that it was stated to be “with prejudice.” The Commonwealth agreed; the original complaint was dismissed “with prejudice” upon the Commonwealth’s submitting a new complaint charging OUI, second offense. The defendant was then tried on the second complaint. The trial judge, agreeing with the defendant as to the inapplicability of the second offense provisions of § 24, found the defendant guilty of so much of the complaint as charged simple OUI. Under the trial de novo system then in effect, the defendant appealed from the guilty finding to the District Court jury-of-six session and there moved for dismissal of the complaint on the ground of double jeopardy.

The motion should not have been allowed. When the original OUI complaint was dismissed, no trial had begun, and jeopardy had not attached. *Commonwealth*v. *Ludwig,*370 Mass. 31, 33 (1976). The case does not fall within any of the exceptions (see *Commonwealth*v. *Zannino,*17 Mass. App. Ct. 73, 76 n.3 [1983]) to the general rule that a dismissal of a criminal complaint without trial on the merits is no bar to later prosecution for *904the same offense. *Commonwealth*v. *Ballou,*350 Mass. 751, 752 (1966). The fact that the dismissal was stated to be “with prejudice” is not controlling. *Commonwealth*v. *Babb,*389 Mass. 275, 281 (1983). See *Adams*v. *Commonwealth,*415 Mass. 360, 362-363 (1993). A “dismissal .. . with prejudice must properly rest on a ground warranting such action before it will preclude subsequent prosecution . . . .” *Commonwealth*v. *Zannino, supra*at 75 n.2.

*Daniel S. Field,*Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

*Gerard F. Lane*for the defendant.

The order dismissing the complaint is reversed, and the case is to stand for retrial on so much of the complaint as charges simple OUI.

*So ordered.*
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6014

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CORY LEE JACOBS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:18-cr-00245-TDS-2; 1:21-

cv-00098-TDS-JEP)

Submitted: September 15, 2022 Decided: September 27, 2022

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and DIAZ and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cory Lee Jacobs, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6014 Doc: 16 Filed: 09/27/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Cory Lee Jacobs seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion 

“without prejudice to [his] promptly filing a corrected motion on the proper § 2255 forms.”

We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory.

This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and 

certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); 

Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). “[A]n order that 

dismisses a complaint with leave to amend is not a final decision because it means that the 

district court is not finished with the case.” Britt v. DeJoy, 45 F.4th 790, , No. 20-1620, 

2022 WL 3590436, at *3 (4th Cir. Aug. 17, 2022) (en banc) (published order) (citing 

Jung v. K. & D. Min. Co., 356 U.S. 335, 336-37 (1958)). If Jacobs wishes to appeal from 

this order, he must first “waive [his] right to amend the [motion] by requesting that the 

district court take further action to finalize its decision,” Britt, 2022 WL 3590436, at *6 

(quoting Jung, 356 U.S. at 337), and he “must obtain an additional, final decision from the 

district court finalizing its judgment.” Id. Because Jacobs has not done so, the order Jacobs 

seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and we deny Jacobs’ 

pending motions. 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.

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6014 Doc: 16 Filed: 09/27/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
**Exhibit
      32.2**







**RAVEN
      GOLD CORP.**





**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 Raven Gold Corp. on Form 10-QSB for
      the
      period ended October 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Bashir Virji, Chief Financial
      Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement req  uired
      by
      Sect ion
      906
      has bee  n
      provided to Raven Gold Corp. and will be retained by Raven Gold Corp. and
      furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.








*/s/
        Bashir Virji*


Bashir
          Virji


Chief
        Financial Officer, acting


Principal
        Financial Officer, and


acting
        Principal Accounting Officer


June
        25,
        2007
# C_2006241EN.01000301.xml

| 6.10.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 241/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 241/3

---

COUNCIL DECISION

COUNCIL DECISION

of 18 September 2006

appointing a member of the Advisory Committee of the Euratom Supply Agency

(2006/C 241/03)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular the second and third paragraphs of Article 54 thereof,

Having regard to Article X of the Statutes of the Euratom Supply Agency (1), as last amended by Decision 95/1/EC, Euratom, ECSC of 1 January 1995 (2),

1

2

Having regard to the Council Decision of 12 July 2005 appointing the members of the Advisory Committee of the Euratom Supply Agency (3),

3

Having regard to the opinion of the Commission,

Whereas:

| (1) | A member's seat on the above Committee has fallen vacant following the resignation of Mr Mike TRAVIS, of which the Council was informed on 18 January 2006. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

A member's seat on the above Committee has fallen vacant following the resignation of Mr Mike TRAVIS, of which the Council was informed on 18 January 2006.

| (2) | That vacancy should therefore be filled. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

That vacancy should therefore be filled.

| (3) | The United Kingdom Government submitted a nomination on 18 January 2006, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The United Kingdom Government submitted a nomination on 18 January 2006,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article

Mr Martin OLIVA is hereby appointed a member of the Advisory Committee of the Euratom Supply Agency for the remainder of the Committee's term of office, which ends on 28 March 2007.

Done at Brussels, 18 September 2006

For the Council

The President

J. KORKEAOJA

---

(1)  OJ 27, 6.12.1958, p. 534/58.

1

(2)  OJ L 1, 1.1.1995, p. 1.

2

(3)  OJ C 178, 20.7.2005, p. 1.

3

---
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, Louis J. Brothers, President, Secretary and Treasurer of Valley Forge Composite Technologies, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify to my knowledge that:


| |     |  |                                                                                                                                                                                                                              | 
| | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
| | (1) |  | The Companys quarterly report on amended Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 (the Form 10-Q)  fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and | 




| |     |  |                                                                                                                                                         | 
| | --- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
| | (2) |  | The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. | 




|                        |                                                                  |                      
|----------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------
|                        |                                                                  |                      
|                        | VALLEY FORGE COMPOSITE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
(Registrant)          
|                        |                                                                  |                      
|Date: November 13, 2009 | By:                                                              | /s/ Louis J. Brothers
|                        | Louis J. Brothers                                               
|                        | President, Secretary and Treasurer
(Principal Executive Officer)
* Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________________

No. 98-30806 Summary Calendar

__________________________

JAMES A. HARDY Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION Defendant-Appellee.

___________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana

(97-CV-1620-N)

___________________________________________________

April 9, 1999

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Plaintiff-Appellant James A. Hardy (“Hardy”) appeals the

district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of DefendantAppellee Federal Express Corporation (“FedEx”). The court denied

Hardy’s claims that (1) his employment at FedEx was terminated

based on race; (2) he was termina ted in retaliation for

participating in a discrimination complaint of one of his coworkers; and (3) he was subject to a hostile work environment.2

Hardy also attempts to appeal an earlier ruling of the district

court, which denied his motion to recuse the presiding judge for

impartiality.

We are aided little, if any, by the virtually unintelligible

brief filed by Hardy, but have no difficulty in determining from it

—— and from appellee’s brief, the rulings of the district court,

and the record on appeal

—— that each assignment of error is so

unmeritorious as to be frivolous as a matter of law. We therefore

dismiss this appeal as frivolous, with Hardy to bear all costs.

APPEAL DISMISSED AT APPELLANT’S COST.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1839 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1839

To provide for duty free treatment for certain United States Government 
                property returned to the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 22, 2009

 Ms. Cantwell introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for duty free treatment for certain United States Government 
                property returned to the United States.

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

SECTION 1. DUTY FREE TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT 
              PROPERTY RETURNED TO THE UNITED STATES.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 98 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9801.00.11       United States       Free         ...............  ...............  ...............  ''.
                          Government
                          property,
                          returned to the
                          United States
                          without having
                          been advanced in
                          value or improved
                          in condition by
                          any means while
                          abroad, entered
                          by the United
                          States Government
                          or a contractor
                          to the United
                          States
                          Government, and
                          certified by the
                          importer as
                          United States
                          Government
                          property.........

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
EGU MACT - preamble

12/16/2011 05:55 PM

From: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov>

To: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Bill Maxwell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Hi Bob, Those edits on that response to comments is attached – I think we also have a few comments on the employment section – those should be ready in 15 minutes. In the meantime, this is one sentence a reviewer didn’t understand and hoped you could clarify:

During sustained periods of excess unemployment, the opportunity cost of labor required by regulated sectors to bring their facilities into compliance with an environmental regulation may be lower than it would be during a period of full employment (particularly if regulated industries employ otherwise idled labor to design, fabricate, or install the pollution control equipment required under this final rule).

Preamble_1216_Interagencycomm ents under EO 13563.docx
**EXHIBIT 32.1** **US    BioEnergy Corporation** **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 US BioEnergy    Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the    quarterly period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the    Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the    “Report”), I, Gordon W. Ommen, President and Chief    Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18    U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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: August 10, 2007      /s/  Gordon    W. Ommen    Gordon W. Ommen    Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer    and President    (Principal Executive Officer)
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-1886

_____________________________

MARCIA ELDER,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

AND CONSUMER SERVICES,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Department of Agriculture and Consumer 

Services.

Michael A. Joyner, Assistant Commissioner.

January 30, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, MAKAR, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Jacob D. Varn of Manson Bolves Donaldson Varn, P.A., 

Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Blair N. Bodenmiller, State of Florida, Department of Agriculture 

and Consumer Services, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 7, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 13592]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5468]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 10482-107]


AER NY-Gen, LLC; Eagle Creek Hydro Power, LLC, Eagle Creek Water 
Resources, LLC, Eagle Creek Land Resources, LLC; Notice of Application 
for Transfer of License, and Soliciting Comments and Motions To 
Intervene

    On February 24, 2012, AER NY-Gen, LLC (transferor), Eagle Creek 
Hydro Power, LLC, Eagle Creek Water Resources, LLC, and Eagle Creek 
Land Resources, LLC (transferees) filed an application for the transfer 
of license for the Swinging Bridge Hydroelectric Project No. 10482, 
located on the Mongaup River in Sullivan County, New York.
    Applicants seek Commission approval to transfer the license for the 
Swinging Bridge Hydroelectric Project from the transferor to the 
transferees.
    Applicants' Contact: Transferor: Mr. Joseph Klimaszewski, AER NY-
Gen, LLC, P.O. Box 876, East Aurora, NY 14052, (716) 805-1469. 
Transferees: Mr. Bernard H. Cherry, Eagle Creek Hydro Power, LLC, Eagle 
Creek Water Resources, LLC, and Eagle Creek Land Resources, LLC, 65 
Madison Avenue, Morristown, NJ 07960, (973) 998-8400.
    FERC Contact: Patricia W. Gillis (202) 502-8735, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0979687d7b606a6068276e606565607a496f6c7b6a276e667f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0979687d7b606a6068276e606565607a496f6c7b6a276e667f">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Deadline for filing comments and motions to intervene: 15 days from 
the issuance date of this notice. Comments and motions to intervene may 
be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1) and 
the instructions on the Commission's Web site under http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief 
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the 
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You 
must include your name and contact information at the end of your 
comments. If unable to be filed electronically, documents may be paper-
filed. To paper-file, an original plus seven copies should be mailed 
to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 
888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. More information about this 
project can be viewed or printed on the eLibrary link of Commission's 
Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the 
docket number (P-10482) in the docket number field to access the 
document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

    Dated: February 29, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-5468 Filed 3-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 21.1
  SUBSIDIARIES
    OF PROLIANCE INTERNATIONAL, INC.
    Jurisdiction ofName

Incorporation or
    OrganizationAftermarket Delaware
    Corporation(a)

DelawareAftermarket
    LLC(a)

DelawareProliance International Holding
    Company(a)

DelawareProliance International de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.

MexicoRadiadores GDI, S.A. de C.V.(b)

MexicoManufacturera Mexicana de Partes deAutomoviles, S.A.de C.V.

MexicoNederlandse Radiateuren Fabriek B.V.

The NetherlandsNederlandse Radiateuren Fabriek France SARL

FranceNederlandse Radiateuren Fabriek B.V.B.A.

BelgiumNederlandse Radiateuren Fabriek (United Kingdom)LTD

EnglandNederlandse Radiateuren Fabriek G.M.B.H.

AustriaNederlandse Radiateuren Fabriek Gmbh

GermanyNederlandse Radiateuren Fabriek Espana S.A.

SpainNederlandse Radiateuren Fabriek sp.z.o.o.

PolandNederlandse Radiateuren Fabriek Italia S.r.l.

ItalyNederlandse Radiateuren Fabriek Switzerland AG

SwitzerlandSkopimex
    B.V.(b)

The NetherlandsProliance International Sales, Ltd.

Canada     (a)

    
    Holding company.(b)

    
    Currently an inactive subsidiary.
<PAGE>   1

EXHIBIT 23.1


CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-3 No.333-55843 and 333-32252) of Laserscope and the related Prospectus, as
well as in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No. 33-38831, 33-40506
33-53052, 33-53158, 33-63603 33-82524, 333-07089, 333-07101, 333-07103,
333-07095, 333-11787, 333-11795, 333-31213 and 333-31233, 333-47372, 333-60441,
333-60443, 333-60445 and 333-92713) pertaining to the 1984 Stock Option Plan,
the 1989 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, the 1994 Stock Option Plan, the 1995
Directors' Stock Option Plan the 1995 Replacement Option Plan, the 1999
Directors' Stock Option Plan, the 1999 Retention Stock Option Plan, and the 1999
Employee Stock Purchase Plan of Laserscope, of our report dated February 16,
2001, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of
Laserscope included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December
31, 2000.


                                                    /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


San Jose, California
March 22, 2001
##### 



Exhibit 10.3
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
CREDIT AGREEMENT
 Amendment US BIO ORD, LLC, Borrower AGSTAR
FINANCIAL SERVICES, PCA Agent
 RECITALS
 Credit Agreement
   AGREEMENT
  Amendments to Credit Agreement
 Section 5.01(c)(xvii)




---



##### 



Conditions to Effectiveness of this Amendment .
 Representations and Warranties .
   Miscellaneous .
 Effect; Ratification
 Loan Documents
 Counterparts
 Severability
 GOVERNING LAW




---



##### 



WAIVER OF JURY TRIAL




---



##### 



SIGNATURE PAGE TO
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CREDIT AGREEMENT
 BY AND BETWEEN
 US BIO ORD, LLC,
 And
 AGSTAR FINANCIAL SERVICES, PCA, AS ADMINISTRATIVE AGENT
   BORROWER:
 US BIO ORD, LLC




---



##### 



SIGNATURE PAGE TO
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CREDIT AGREEMENT
 BY AND BETWEEN
 US BIO ORD, LLC,
 And
 AGSTAR FINANCIAL SERVICES, PCA, AS ADMINISTRATIVE AGENT
   AGENT:
 AGSTAR FINANCIAL SERVICES, PCA,
 /s/ Mark SchmidtBy:
    
    Mark SchmidtIts:
    
    Vice President




---



##### 



EXHIBIT A
 CONSENT AND REAFFIRMATION OF GUARANTY
    US BIOENERGY CORPORATIONBy:
    /s/ Kelly S. LangleyName:
    Kelly S. LangleyIts:  Treasurer