alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2004094EN.01001602.xml

| 17.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/16

---

ORDER OF THE COURT

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

8 January 2004

in Case C-69/03 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d'Appello di Venezia): Caseificio Cooperativo di Cornedo Soc. coop. arl v Ministero delle Finanze, (1)

1

(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Regulations (EEC) Nos 1079/77 and 1822/77 - Co-responsibility levy on cows' milk - Concept of ‘delivery to a purchaser’)

(2004/C 94/33)

Language of the case: Italian

In Case C-69/03: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Corte d'Appello di Venezia (Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Caseificio Cooperativo di Cornedo Soc. coop. arl and Ministero delle Finanze, on the interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1079/77 of 17 May 1977 on a co-responsibility levy and on measures for expanding the markets in milk and milk products (OJ 1977 L 131, p. 6) and Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1822/77 of 5 August 1977 laying down detailed rules for the collection of the co-responsibility levy introduced in respect of milk and milk products (OJ 1977 L 203, p. 1), the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, acting for the President of the Second Chamber, R. Schintgen and N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 8 January 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

Council Regulation (EEC) No 1079/77 of 17 May 1977 on a co-responsibility levy and on measures for expanding the markets in milk and milk products and Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1822/77 of 5 August 1977 laying down detailed rules for the collection of the co-responsibility levy introduced in respect of milk and milk products apply to all deliveries of cows' milk made by a producer to another person, regardless of the legal nature of the relationship on the basis of which the deliveries are made.

---

(1)  OJ C 83 of 5.4.2003.

1

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

DARNELL LEE,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 529 EAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 8th day of April, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
# CISWI reductions from L. Sorrels 19jul12, 2:36pm, modified 21nov13: 

CISWITables_1-5_-_MACT_Floor_Emission_Reductions_October_19,_2011_rmLSadds7-19-12_21nov13

.xlsx

# R. Mason computed select SO2 % reductions such that controlled emissions basically 

matched the unit totals for the quote MACT-floor unquote values

# Analysis confined to larger PM, NOX and SO2 impacts (> 50 tons reductions) and NO NOX 

or PM sources in NEI2011v6 as large as baseline in original workbook

# Siginficant SO2 sources still found in 2011NEIv1 and are therefore included for 

control here

# THIS PACKET EXPORTED FROM: /garnet/home/rhc/2011v6/mk_CONTROL_CISWI_2011v6.sas

05081,,SO2,,92.01,100,100,,,Y,R,880811,47419113,,,,"! ARDomtarIndustries, PB1, Energy 

recovery unit - Solids, Wet Electrostatic Precipitator, General"

05081,,SO2,,92.01,100,100,,,Y,R,880811,47419413,,,,"! ARDomtarIndustries, PB3, Energy 

recovery unit - Solids, Electrostatic Precipitator"

22031,,SO2,,94.23,100,100,,,Y,R,7225811,80385413,,,,"! LAIPMansfield, 1-78 - No. 1 Power 

Boiler / EQT005, Energy recovery unit - Solids, Cyclone: Multiple (Multiclone), 

Electrostatic Precipitator"

22031,,SO2,,92.43,100,100,,,Y,R,7225811,80389813,,,,"! LAIPMansfield, 2-78 - No. 2 Power 

Boiler, Energy recovery unit - Solids, Cyclone: Multiple (Multiclone), Electrostatic 

Precipitator"

22069,,SO2,,60.69,100,100,,,Y,R,7226811,80646813,,,,"! LAInternationalPaperRedRiverMill, 

EQT011 Hogged Fuel Boiler No. 2, Energy recovery unit - Solids, Cyclone: Multiple 

(Multiclone), Electrostatic Precipitator"
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 18, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 2571]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-942]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

Sunshine Act Meetings: January 2012

TIME AND DATES:  All meetings are held at 2:30 p.m.

Tuesday, January 24;
Wednesday, January 25;
Thursday, January 26;
Tuesday, January 31.

PLACE: Board Agenda Room, No. 11820, 1099 14th St. NW., Washington, DC 
20570.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Pursuant to Sec.  102.139(a) of the Board's 
Rules and Regulations, the Board or a panel thereof will consider ``the 
issuance of a subpoena, the Board's participation in a civil action or 
proceeding or an arbitration, or the initiation, conduct, or 
disposition * * * of particular representation or unfair labor practice 
proceedings under section 8, 9, or 10 of the [National Labor Relations] 
Act, or any court proceedings collateral or ancillary thereto.'' See 
also 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(10).

    Dated: January 13, 2012.
Lester A. Heltzer,
Executive Secretary, (202) 273-1067.
[FR Doc. 2012-942 Filed 1-13-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7545-01-P
```
```

Exhibit 32.2

     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for
the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "Report") by MDwerks Inc. (the "Registrant"), I, Vincent
Colangelo, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify that:

1.    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 Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of
      Registrant.

                                                    /s/ Vincent Colangelo
                                                    ---------------------

Dated: May 15, 2006
```
# United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

No. 14-1047 ÁNGELA RIVERA-CARRASQUILLO; JOSÉ HERNÁNDEZ-QUIÑONES; CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP HERNÁNDEZ-RIVERA,
Plaintiffs, Appellees,

v. CENTRO ECUESTRE MADRIGAL, INC., d/b/a Hacienda Madrigal; INTEGRAND ASSURANCE COMPANY; PASIÓN ECUESTRE, INC.; GERARDO CALDERÓN-LOZANO,
Defendants, Appellants,
FLORENCIO BERRÍOS-CASTRODAD; IRMA SARA CASILLAS; AGRO MONTELLANO, INC., CRIADERO LA GLORIA, INC.; EDGARDO VÉLEZ; RESTAURANTE EL ESTRIBO; CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP BERRÍOS-CASILLAS,

Defendants.

**ERRATA SHEET**
The opinion of this Court issued on January 25, 2016 is amended as follows:
On page 5, line 24, replace "Id. at 27" with "Id."
On page 15, line 8, replace "Defendants" with "[d]efendants".
On page 15, line 12, insert the word "the" between "in" and "Report".
On page 16, footnote 13, line 4, replace "supra" with "supra".
On page 32, footnote 23, line 2, replace "judgement" with "judgment".
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-1163

ARTHUR O. ARMSTRONG,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

KOURY CORPORATION,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

HOLIDAY INN,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Sr.,

District Judge. (CA-96-87-2)

Submitted: April 17, 1997 Decided: April 30, 1997

Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Arthur O. Armstrong, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan A. Berkelhammer,

SMITH, HELMS, MULLISS & MOORE, L.L.P., Greensboro, North Carolina,

for Appellee.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order granting summary

judgment to the Defendants in a discrimination case. We have

reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. Armstrong v. Koury Corp., No. CA-96-87-2 (M.D.N.C.

Jan. 2, 1997). Additionally, we deny Appellant's motion to amend

his complaint and Appellee's motion to strike. We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32.2 Certificate:

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT

OF GRAY PEAKS, INC.

I, the undersigned, being the one of the Co-Chief Executive Officers, respectively, of Gray Peaks, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
Company), does hereby certify, to the best of his information, knowledge and belief, that (1) the Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o(d)) 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: November 20, 2006



|                                 
|---------------------------------
|                                 
|/s/ Bary Bertiger                
|Title: Co-Chief Executive Officer
JUDGMENT

Court of Appeals 

 

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-15-00241-CV

MARTHA SORUM, Appellant

V.

KERRICK CASTLE, Appellee

Appeal from the 268th District Court of Fort Bend County. (Tr. Ct. No. 12-DCV202865).

Appellant, Martha Sorum, has filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal. 

After due consideration, the Court grants the motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the Court 

dismisses the appeal.

The Court orders that costs are taxed against the party incurring same.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below for observance.

Judgment rendered April 7, 2015.

Judgment rendered by panel consisting of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Brown and 

Lloyd.
* 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. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED December 6, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-50758 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JULIO RAMIREZ-LOPEZ, also known as Sergio Gutierrez-Lopez, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:06-CR-76

-------------------- Before REAVLEY, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Julio RamirezLopez raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
#### Rose RAMOS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ernest BOWER, Sheriff Weld County, State of Colorado, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 79SA13.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

Oct. 29, 1979.

J. Gregory Walta, Colorado State Public Defender, Craig L. Truman, Chief Deputy State Public Defender, Cary C. Lacklen, Deputy State Public Defender, Greeley, Denver, for petitioner-appellant.

J. D. MacFarlane, Atty. Gen., Richard F. Hennessey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Edward G. Donovan, Sol. Gen., John Daniel Dailey, Asst. Atty. Gen., Litigation Section, Denver, for respondent-appellee.

LEE, Justice.

Appellant is contesting her extradition to California for parole violations. This appeal is from an order of the district court discharging a writ of habeas corpus. The demand for extradition and supporting documents supplied by the State of California, as well as the Colorado Governor’s warrant, named Elena Palma as the person sought to be extradited.

Appellant denied she was Elena Palma, refused to' waive extradition, and filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the district court. She alleged that probable cause did not exist to believe that she was in fact the Elena Palma sought by the State of California. A hearing was held, after which the court discharged the writ. We affirm.

The court’s judgment was based on its finding that pictures accompanying the extradition documents, authenticated by the California Governor, established the identity of the appellant as the person sought to be extradited. This finding by the court is supported by the record.

Appellant contends that the pictures of the person sought to be extradited were not a part of the extradition documents, nor were they duly authenticated. This assertion is contrary to the record. *See Hall v. Cronin,*196 Colo. 333, 585 P.2d 286 (1978).

The judgment is affirmed.
ex_385686.htm


Exhibit 10.1


 


 


Fiscal 2022 Executive Incentive Plan. On June 7, 2022, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors (the “Committee”) of American Superconductor Corporation (the “Company”) and the Board of Directors of the Company approved an executive incentive plan for the Company’s fiscal year ending March 31, 2023 (“fiscal 2022”). Participants in the plan include the Company’s chief executive officer and all other current executive officers. Pursuant to the plan, each participant is designated a target cash incentive amount, expressed as a percentage of the participant’s base salary. The Committee is responsible for determining the payout under the plan to each participant except the chief executive officer. The Board of Directors of the Company determines the payout under the plan for the chief executive officer, taking into account the recommendation of the Committee.


 


The amount of the incentive award actually paid to each participant may be less than or greater than the participant’s target cash incentive, with the amount capped at 200% of the target incentive. For each participant, individual incentive awards will be determined following the end of fiscal 2022 based on the following factors and their corresponding weightings:


 


	 	
			•

				 	
			the Company’s operating cash flow for fiscal 2022 as compared to the established target – 50%

			



 


	 	
			•

				 	
			the Company’s revenues for fiscal 2022 as compared to the established target – 25%

			



 


	 	
			•

				 	
			the Company’s operating expenses for fiscal 2022 as compared to the established target – 25%

			



 


The following table sets forth the target cash incentive for fiscal 2022 for each current executive officer:


 


	
			Executive Officer

				 	
			Title

				
			Target Incentive

			as % of

			Base Salary

				 	
			Target Incentive

			
	
			Daniel P. McGahn

				 	
			Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer

				 	100%	
			 

				$	525,000
	
			John W. Kosiba, Jr.

				 	
			Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

				 	55%	
			 

				$	200,750
NO. 07-07-0117-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

MAY 8, 2007

______________________________

LEE Y. COCKRELL, GUARDIAN OF THE PERSON AND ESTATE OF

 ALICE B. INGRUM GRAY, AN INCAPACITATED PERSON, APPELLANT

V.

GENE O. “BUDDY” COCKRELL, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 31ST DISTRICT COURT OF GRAY COUNTY;

NO. 33,395-A; HONORABLE STEVEN R. EMMERT, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before this Court is Appellant’s Motion to Dismiss in which, Lee Y. Cockrell,

Guardian of the Person and Estate of Alice B. Ingrum Gray, an Incapacitated Person,

represents that pursuant to a settlement agreement, he no longer wishes to pursue this
2

appeal. Cockrell also represents that all disputes between the parties have been settled

and requests dismissal with prejudice. 

Without passing on the merits of the case, pursuant to Rule 42.1(a)(1) of the Texas

Rules of Appellate Procedure, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal with prejudice.

Having dismissed the appeal at Cockrell’s request, no motion for rehearing will be

entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith.

Patrick A. Pirtle

 Justice
Exhibit 32.1

              Certification Of Chief Executive 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 Quarterly Report of ABC Funding, Inc. (the "Company") for
the quarter ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Alan Gaines, as Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, and Richard Cohen, as Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, each certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge,
respectively, that:

      1.    The Report fully complies with 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.


      Dated: February 1, 2007         By: /s/ Alan Gaines
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Alan Gaines, Chief Executive Officer
                                          ABC Funding, Inc.


      Dated: February 1, 2007         By: /s/ Richard Cohen
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Richard Cohen, Chief Financial Officer
                                          ABC Funding, Inc.
SIMON A. SANCHEZ,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-0203

_____________________________/

Opinion filed June 1, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Waddell A. Wallace, Judge.

Simon A. Sanchez, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Kathryn Lane, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

THOMAS, WINOKUR, and JAY, JJ., CONCUR.
October 25, 2016 

Mr. Michael O. Rosolina 

Flight Operations Manager – Aerial Application 

Dynamic Aviation Group, Inc. 

P.O. Box 7 

Bridgewater, VA 22812 

Dear Mr. Rosolina: 

This is in response to your July 11, 2016 letter sent to the public docket (No. FAA-2002-

12484) requesting the Federal Aviation Administration on behalf of Dynamic Aviation 

Group, Inc. (Dynamic Aviation) to update the aircraft list that is required in Condition and 

Limitation No. 8 in Exemption No. 7827, as amended. 

Our office contacted the Washington Flight Standards District Office (AEA-FSDO-27), and 

provided the FSDO with your updated aircraft listing to be included in the part 137 file as 

spelled out in Exemption No. 7827, as amended. 

Please be aware that Exemption No. 7827, as amended, expires on December 31, 2016.

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

James M. Crotty 

Manager, Aircraft and Airport Rules Division
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 1 Received in Senate (RDS)]

<DOC>
116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 1

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 4, 2019

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
     Regarding consent to assemble outside the seat of government.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That pursuant to clause 4, section 5, article I of the Constitution, 
during the One Hundred Sixteenth Congress the Speaker of the House and 
the Majority Leader of the Senate or their respective designees, acting 
jointly after consultation with the Minority Leader of the House and 
the Minority Leader of the Senate,

              

 may notify the Members of the House and the Senate, respectively, to 
assemble at a place outside the District of Columbia if, in their 
opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

            Passed the House of Representatives January 3, 2019.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
----

**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**

| (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. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/Michael                Piazza                   |   |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Michael                Piazza                      |   |
| President                (Chief Executive Officer) |

----
### In The Matter Of: EPA Bristol Bay Public Meeting -- Anchorage, Vol. II August 12, 2014 Midnight Sun Court Reporters 511 W. 9th Ave. Anchorage, AK 99501 Ph. 907-258-7100 Fax 907-276-6727

To open files, click on the desired file type in bookmark on left. For quick saving or searching multiple files, click attachments tab (or paperclip) on left. For best viewing/searching, use Adobe Reader/Acrobat ver. 9 or higher (www.adobe.com).