alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2004094EN.01006601.xml

| 17.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/66

---

Action brought on 1 March 2004 by Åsa Sundholm against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-86/04)

(2004/C 94/163)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 1 March 2004 by Åsa Sundholm, residing in Brussels, represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of 10 April 2003 adopting the applicant's career development report for the period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 10 April 2003 adopting the applicant's career development report for the period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of her application the applicant submits that the disputed report makes reference to her justified absences and to her state of health in breach of Article 7(2) of the general provisions for implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations. She also pleads that there was a manifest error of assessment in that there were allegedly inconsistencies between the comments and the marks awarded to her in that report. Finally, the applicant submits that the report does not state adequate reasons, particularly as it departs from the recommendations of the Joint Evaluation Committee and must, under Article 8(7) of the general provisions for implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations, give reasons for doing so.

---
EXHIBIT 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Kathleen P. McSherry, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Ridgewood Energy L
Fund, LLC;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.


Dated:       March 9, 2007

        /s/  KATHLEEN P. MCSHERRY
      Name:  Kathleen P. McSherry

     Title:  Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
             (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF AGING 

AND DISABLITY SERVICES,

 Appellant,

v.

SANDRA DELONG,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§ 

No. 08-13-00202-CV

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 3

of El Paso, Texas

(TC# 2012-DCV-04738)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes the appeal should be 

dismissed as moot, in accordance with the opinion of this Court. We therefore dismiss the 

appeal. This decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2014.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.
Exhibit No. 31.2


RULE 13a-14(a) CERTIFICATION


I, Andrea H. Simon, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 25, 2022 of MasterBrand, Inc. (the “registrant”);





2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;





3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;





4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:





a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;





b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and





c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and





5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):





a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and





b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.








/s/ Andrea H. SimonAndrea H. SimonExecutive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer





Dated: March 10, 2023
# United States Court of Appeals

f or the Fifth Circuit

No. 20

- 11241 Summary Calendar

United States of America,
Plaintiff

— Appellee ,

versus
Macario Andrew Gomez, Jr.,
Defendant

— Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 1:20

- CR

- 26

- 1

Before Clement, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam : *

Macario Andrew Gomez, Jr., appeals his within

- guidelines sentence of 9 7 months of imprisonment and four years of supervised release imposed following a guilty plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute five

* Pursuant to 5th Cir cuit R ule 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 5th Cir cuit R ule 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 9, 2021 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 20-11241 Document: 00515893051 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/09/2021No. 20

- 11241

2 grams or more of methamphetamine (actual) in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B)(viii)

. Gomez argues that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment rights on the basis that the drug quantity should have been found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt bec ause, even if it did not affect the maximum or minimum mandatory sentences set forth in § 841, it affected “the maximum and minimum reasonable sentence.” He concedes, however, that his claim is foreclosed by United States v. Tuma , 738 F.3d 681 (5th Cir. 2 01 3 ) , but wishes to preserve his claim for further review

. The Government has moved, unopposed, for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of time to file its brief. The judicial factfinding influenced only the advisory guidelines range

a nd did not alter the mandatory minimum sentence. See Tuma , 738 F.3d at
693 ; see also United States v. Hinojosa , 749 F.3d 407, 411

- 13 (5th Cir. 2014). Consequently, as Gomez concedes and the Government asserts, his argument is foreclosed, such that “there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case , ” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), and summary affirmance is proper. Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED , and the judgme nt of the district court is AFFIRMED . The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is
DENIED

. Case: 20-11241 Document: 00515893051 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/09/2021
**Exhibit 32.2**

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I,Dianne M. Scheu, Senior Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer ofCellu Tissue Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.               The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qof the Company for the period ended May 25, 2006 fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.               Theinformation contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date:   July 10, 2006 | /s/ Dianne M. Scheu                                         |
|--------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                 | Dianne M. Scheu                                             |
|                                 | Senior Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial  Officer |

 

----
Agricultural Marketing Service, Specialty Crops Program, Specialty Crops Inspection Division

Application of Tolerances for Import Requirements and Marketing Order Regulations

(January 2017)

SCI Division Inspection Series

Page 1 of 1

APPLICATION OF TOLERANCES FOR IMPORT REQUIREMENTS AND 

MARKETING ORDER REGULATIONS

This document clarifies Division policy on standards and regulations (e.g., Import Regulations 

and Marketing Order Requirements) which establish lot tolerances for special requirements, size 

and/or defects but do not specify exceptions or additional tolerances for individual packages.

Background

We have learned recently of instances of inspectors applying a sample or container tolerance to 

an individual package when there is no such tolerance provided when inspecting for Import 

Regulations and/or Marketing Order Requirements. For those regulations which do not contain 

such provisions, there is no limitation on the percentages of defects or off-size or other factors 

for an individual package.

Page 66 of the General Market Manual states; Some early U.S. Standards do not include 

provisions for applying tolerances to individual packages. For those standards, there is no 

limit on the percentage of defects or offsize allowed in individual packages. If the average 

for the lot or a particular tolerance is not exceeded, the lot will meet the grade or 

specification, regardless of the percentages of defects or offsize in any container.

Policy

It is not permissible to fail a commodity for exceeding a container or sample tolerance when no 

tolerance exists. There are no general rules of one and a half times the tolerance and double the 

tolerance when no application of tolerances is specified. Always refer to the particular 

standard, regulation, or requirement for the correct application of the tolerance.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
Exhibit
32.1


CERTIFICATION




Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


(Section
1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Orsus Xelent Technologies, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the
Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Guoji Liu,
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), as applicable, of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)  The information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:
      May 24, 2010By:
                /s/ Guoji LiuGuoji
      LiuChief
      Executive Officer





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 76 (Thursday, April 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 23538]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9455]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>13058 and <greek-i>13059]


West Virginia Disaster Number WV-00025

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 1.

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

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of West 
Virginia (FEMA-4061-DR), dated 03/22/2012.
    Incident: Severe storms, flooding, mudslides, and landslides.
    Incident Period: 03/15/2012 through 03/31/2012.
    Effective Date: 03/31/2012.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 05/21/2012.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 12/24/2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing And Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the President's major disaster 
declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of WEST 
VIRGINIA, dated 03/22/2012, is hereby amended to establish the incident 
period for this disaster as beginning 03/15/2012 and continuing through 
03/31/2012.
    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

James E. Rivera,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2012-9455 Filed 4-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
#### Commonwealth ex rel. Maurice *v.*Smith, Warden.

November 18, 1942:

Per Curiam,

The petition for a rehearing is refused.

This petitioner on July 28, 1939, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this court to No. 19 Miscellaneous Docket No. 5, which was refused on September 8, 1939.

On May 24, 1940, he filed a second petition for writ *456of habeas corpus to No. 80 Miscellaneous Docket No. 5. We granted the writ and had a hearing which was held at Room 450 City Hall, Philadelphia, on October 28, 1940, at which time the petitioner testified in his own behalf, and Morris Passon, Harry W. Steinbrook, Assistant District Attorney Harry Felix and Judge Edwin O. Lewis, who presided at the trial, were also heard. On November 11, 1940, we ordered the writ dismissed and the relator remanded.

He then applied to our Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus, which, was refused on January 20, 1942, *(Com. ex rel. Maurice v. Smith, Warden,*344 Pa. 60, 24 A. 2d 11), the court basing its refusal on *Com. ex rel. McGlinn v. Smith, Warden,*344 Pa. 41, 24 A. 2d 1. It also approved our action on the petition filed to No. 80. In quoting from our order in that case the Supreme Court inadvertently omitted the piart of our order, italicized below. What we actually said, *inter alia,*was “......we find......that he knew of his right to be represented by counsel on the trial; that he did not ask for a continuance of the case; that he was asked by the assistant district attorney and the trial judge if he had counsel, *or wanted counsel*to represent him, and that he replied that he did not.”

Petitioner then applied to the Supreme Court of the United States for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, which on March 30, 1942, was denied “for the reason that the court, upon examination of the papers herein submitted, finds no ground upon which writ of certiorari should be issued.” See 62 Supreme Court Reports 918, 315 U. S. 820.

The matter is closed and will not be reopened.
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 74 (Tuesday, April 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 22794]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9118]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

Center For Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis 
Panel, Member Conflict: Metabolic Disease.
    Date: May 4, 2012.
    Time: 2 p.m. to 4 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, 
Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call)
    Contact Person: Krish Krishnan, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of 
Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6164, MSC 7892, Bethesda, MD 
20892, (301) 435-1041, [email protected].

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, 
Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 
93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: April 10, 2012.
Anna P. Snouffer,
Deputy Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-9118 Filed 4-16-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
```
United States Environmental Protection Agency 

Electronic Docket Index for

[EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0322]

Approval of California State Implementation Plan Revisions; Butte County Air Quality 

Management District; Stationary Source Permits

I. SIP Submittal Documents

I-A SIP submittal letter from CARB, Rule 204, dated November 6, 2014

I-B Rule 400 – Permit Requirements, adopted April 24, 2014

I-C Rule 401 – Permit Exemptions, adopted on April 24, 2014

I-D Rule 432 – Federal New Source Review, adopted on April 24, 2014

I-E Butte County AQMD Staff Report, dated April 24, 2014

II. Federal Register Notices

1

II-A 37 FR 10851 (May 31, 1972) Approval of Rules 4-4 and 405

II-B

42 FR 35314 (July 8, 1977) Recommended Policy on Control of Volatile Organic 

Compounds

II-C 52 FR 3226 (February 3, 1987) Approval of Rules 401, 402, 406, 407, 420 & 421

II-D 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) Title I General Preamble

II-E 66 FR 21875 (May 2, 2001) Approval of Rules 403 and 424)

II-F 68 FR 61248 (October 27, 2003) RMRR

II-G 77 FR 71551 (December 3, 2012) 1997 Ozone 

II-H 78 FR 55225 (September 10, 2013) 24-hr PM2.5

II-I 78 FR 55225 (September 10, 2013) Butte County PM2.5 CDD

II-J 80 FR 15340 (March 23, 2015) PM2.5 Subpart 4

II-K 80 FR 1816 (January 13, 2015) SJV Proposed PM2.5 Plan approval

II-L 80 FR 33195 (June 11, 2015) Approval of Rule 101

II-M 80 FR 69880 (November 12, 2015) Approval of Rule 1107

II-N 81 FR 26697 (May 4, 2016) 2008 Ozone

III.Other Relevant Documents

III-A Submittal Completeness Letter for Rules 400, 401 and 432, December 18, 2014 

III-B Technical Support Document for BCAQMD Rules 400, 401 & 432, August 5, 2016

III-C BCAQMD Rule 431 – Emission Reduction Credits and Banking

III-D BCAQMD Rule 1101 – Title V – Federal Operating Permits

III-E

BCAQMD Rule 4-4 – Exemptions from Permit Requirement (SIP approved 

5/31/72)

 

1 All Federal Register notices listed after 1993 are available on-line at: 

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collection.action?collectionCode=FR
III-F

Butte County Rules 401, 402, 403, 405, 406, 407, 420, 421 and 424 (Text of SIP 

approved version)

III-G ARB 2008 Ozone Emission Inventory, submitted on July 17, 2014

III-H 1996 TSD for South Coast Rulemaking

III-I District Letter dated March 25, 2016 re: Clarification of SIP Submittal for Permit 

Regulations

III-J District Letter dated March 25, 2016 re: Influence of Ammonia Emissions in 

District Stationary Source Permitting

IV.EPA Rulemaking Documents

IV-A Federal Register Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, dated August 19, 2016 (XX FR 

XXX)

IV-B Federal Register Notice of Direct Final Rulemaking, dated Month Day Year (XX 

FR XXX)

Notes:

1. A copy of each document is located at the EPA Region 9 office.