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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1807

JANICE WOLK GRENADIER,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JAMES C. CLARK, Judge, in his Personal and Professional Capacity,

 Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:17-cv-00280-CMH-JFA)

Submitted: January 30, 2018 Decided: February 1, 2018

Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Janice Wolk Grenadier, Appellant Pro Se. Margeaux Showell Serrano, OFFICE OF THE 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Janice Wolk Grenadier appeals the district court’s orders dismissing her suit 

against a state judge and denying various motions. We have reviewed the record and find 

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. 

Grenadier v. Clark, No. 1:17-cv-00280-CMH-JFA (E.D. Va. Apr. 21, 2017; May 23, 

2017; June 2 & 23, 2017). 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
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2008-1370 

(Opposition No. 91/176,609) 

HOLT’S COMPANY, 

Appellant, 

v. 

VIRGIN ENTERPRISES LIMITED, 

Appellee. 

M. Kelly Tillery, Pepper Hamilton, LLP, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, argued for 

appellant. 

James M. Dabney, Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson LLP, of New York, 

New York, argued for appellee. With him on the brief were Victoria J.B. Doyle and 

Mitchell Epner, and John F. Duffy, of Washington, DC. 

Appealed from: United States Patent and Trademark Office 

 Trademark Trial and Appeal Board 
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

 

 2008-1370 

(Opposition No. 91/176,609) 

HOLT’S COMPANY, 

 Appellant, 

v. 

VIRGIN ENTERPRISES LIMITED, 

 Appellee. 

 Judgment

ON APPEAL from the United States Patent and Trademark Office 

in CASE NO(S). 91/176,609. 

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 

Per Curiam (MAYER, CLEVENGER, and RADER Circuit Judges ) 

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. 

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

DATED February 6, 2009 /s/ Jan Horbaly 

Jan Horbaly, Clerk
FORMAL RECOMMENDATION BY THE

NATIONAL ORGANIC STANDARDS BOARD (NOSB) 

TO THE NATIONAL ORGANIC PROGRAM (NOP) 

Date: _____6-3-06___________________

Subject: Sunset Review - 205.601 Synthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop 

production 

Chair: Kevin O’Rell 

Recommendation

The NOSB hereby recommends to the NOP the following: 

Rulemaking Action: _XXXXXX_ 

Guidance Statement: ________ 

Other: ________ 

Statement of the Recommendation (including Recount of Vote):

See attached Recommendation for Renewal of Lignin Sulfonate as Synthetic substances allowed 

for use in organic crop production on 205.601, category use (j) as plant or soil amendments and 

(l) as flotation agents in post-harvest handling. 

NOSB Vote: 

Moved: Gerald Davis Second: Nancy Ostiguy 

Yes – 8 

No – 2 

Abstain – 2 

Absent – 2 

Rationale Supporting Recommendation (including consistency with OFPA and NOP):

NOSB Sunset Material Vote 

Response by the NOP:
 NOSB- Crops Committee 

Lignin Sulfonate - Sunset Recommendation 

Final NOSB Recommendation 4/20/2006 

 I. List: 205.601 Synthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop production 

II. Category Use 

(j): As plant or soil amendments 

 (l): As floatation agents in post-harvest handling 

III. Committee Summary: The question of whether there are non-synthetic 

alternatives to lignin sulfonates as plant or soil amendments was an issue during the 

sunset process consideration. Lignin sulfonates are used extensively as a chelating 

agent for micronutrients in liquid fertilizer formulations approved for use in organic 

crops. However, no information was supplied in the public comments to suggest any 

non-synthetic alternatives for this very common use of the materials. Citric acid is a 

non-synthetic material that is considered to have a weak chelating effect when used 

for this purpose, but is not directly comparable to the level achieved with the lignin 

sulfonates. 

Regarding floating agents in post-harvest handling, a comment was received 

suggesting that physical agitation (bubblers, etc) could work as an alternative practice 

to lignin sulfonate use. Subsequent comments received disputed that the use of 

physical agitation works in the handling of pears. 

IV. Committee Recommendation 

Recommendation based on comments received- 205.601 

The crops committee recommends renewing the following material to the following 

categories of use: 

(j)- As plant or soil amendment. 

 (4)-Lignin sulfonate- chelating agent, dust suppressant. 

(l)- As floating agents in post-harvest handling. 

 (1)- Lignin sulfonate.

Moved:Rigoberto Delgado Second: Jeff Moyer 

Committee vote: 3-1 Absent- Ostiguy 

NOSB vote: 

Moved: Gerald Davis Second: Nancy Ostiguy 

Yes – 8 

No – 2 

Abstain – 2 

Absent – 2
# C_2012326EN.01020101.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

PROTOCOL (No 33)

CONCERNING ARTICLE 157 OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES,

HAVE AGREED upon the following provision, which shall be annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union:

For the purposes of Article 157 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, benefits under occupational social security schemes shall not be considered as remuneration if and in so far as they are attributable to periods of employment prior to 17 May 1990, except in the case of workers or those claiming under them who have before that date initiated legal proceedings or introduced an equivalent claim under the applicable national law.

---
Exhibit
      32(e)









**CERTIFICATION
      FURNISHED PURSUANT TO**




**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**




**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**




**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




In
      connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Florida Power Corporation
      (the
“Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jeffrey J. Lyash,
      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), as
      applicable, 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 condition and result of operations of the Company.











/s/
      Jeffrey J. Lyash


Jeffrey
      J. Lyash


President
      and Chief Executive Officer


February
      26, 2007








This
      certification is being furnished and shall not be deemed filed by the Company
      for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
      or incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Exchange Act
      of
      1934, as amended, or the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACTAPPEALS Appeal of

-- Satterfield & Pontikes Construction, Inc. Under ContractNo. N69450-12-C-0754 APPEARANCE FORTHE APPELLANT: ) ) ) ) ) ASBCA No. 62158
Douglas L. Patin, Esq.

APPEARANCES FORTHE GOVERNMENT: Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP Washington, DC Craig D. Jensen, Esq.

Navy ChiefTrial Attorney Matthew D. Bordelon, Esq.

Trial Attorney ORDER OF DISMISSAL On August 27, 2019, appellant filed a Notice ofAppeal predicated upon the "deemeddenial" ofits June 13, 2019 "Termination for Convenience claim and request for a final decision to the Contracting Officer [CO]." This was based upon the CO's failure to issue a final decision within 60 days orto indicate when this would be done. The appeal was docketed as ASBCANo. 62158. By separate correspondence ofAugust 27, 2019, Satterfield & Pontikes then notified the Boardthat it had located a copy ofthe CO's response to the claim, and sought to withdraw the appeal while "reserv[ing] its rights to refile a Notice ofAppeal at a later date." The Board treats this as a motion to dismiss the appeal withoutprejudice. The government was given the opportunity to respond, and initially indicated that it would agree to dismissal only ifit were done with prejudice. Following further discussion, the parties on September 30, 2019, agreed to dismissal ofthe appeal without prejudice upon these terms: Appellant dismisses without prejudice its deemed denial appeal ofAugust 27, 2019. Appellant will not seekto reinstate this "deemed denial" appeal filed August 27, 2019[], or seek to file any other deemed denial "relatingback" to that August 27, 2019 Notice ofAppeal. This dismissal without prejudice does not affect Appellant's right to appeal a contracting officer's final decision regarding Appellant's termination for convenience claim dated June 13, 2019, or a subsequent, independent deemed denial appeal ofthat claim. 

# rWe regard this as ajointmotion to dismiss ASBCANo. 62158 without prejudice. The motion is granted in accordance with BoardRule 18(b), with the stipulation that appellant is not foreclosed from lodging a timely appeal ofits June 13, 2019 claim under the circumstances stated above. Dated: October 2, 2019

Administrative Judge Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCANo. 62158, Appeal ofSatterfield & Pontikes Construction, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:

2 PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                      5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  Year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Oct-28-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                   Oct-28-1995
<CASH>                                         676,981
<SECURITIES>                                   679,513
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2,761,394
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    1,899,346
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               6,324,208
<PP&E>                                         7,325,989
<DEPRECIATION>                                 4,504,185
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 9,292,446
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,027,840
<BONDS>                                        0
<COMMON>                                       1,261,001
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    933,080
<OTHER-SE>                                     4,435,810
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   9,292,446
<SALES>                                        16,972,876
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               16,972,876
<CGS>                                          10,852,940
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  14,099,821
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (98,593)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             38,871
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                2,932,777
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1,148,902
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1,783,875
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,783,875
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .11
        

</TABLE>
EPA Cross-walk Analysis: State of South Dakota July 29, 2013 Submittal 

1 

Citation from 07/29/2013 

submittal 

Number of the Rule and Rule Title 

Discussion Action we are taking 

in this notice 

74:36:01:01 

(Definitions) 

74:36:01:01(27) “Existing 

source” 

Removal of the reference to variance. Proposing approval 

74:36:01:01(38) “New Source” Removal of the reference to an “approved state issued 

variance.” 

Proposing approval 

74:36:01:01 (66) “Variance” This definition is being deleted. Proposing approval 

74:36:02 

 (Ambient Air Quality) 

Updating federal references throughout. Proposing approval 

74:36:04 

 (Operating Permits for Minor 

Sources) 

Updating references to South Dakota’s legal code. Proposing approval 

74:36:05 (Operating Permits 

for Part 70 Sources) 

We are not taking action on this chapter. Title V 

permits are not part of the SIP. 

 No action needed 

74:36:07 

(New Source Performance 

Standards) 

We are not taking action on this chapter. NSPS are not 

part of the SIP. 

No action needed 

74:36:08 

(NESHAPS) 

We are not taking action on this chapter. NESHAPS 

are not part of the SIP. 

No action needed 

74:36:09 

(Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration) 

The proposed changes were acted on January 29, 2015, 

80 FR 4799. 

No action needed 

74:36:10 

(New Source Review) 

Removing 74:36:10:09 and 10, both related to clean 

units. We are not taking action on 74:36:10:06. 

Proposing approval, 

with the exception 

of 74:36:10:06 

74:36:11 

(Performance Testing) 

Updating the federal reference throughout chapter 11. Proposing approval 

74:36:12 

(Control of Visible Emissions) 

Updating the federal reference with the exception of 

74:36:12:02(3), on which we are not taking action. 

Proposing approval, 

with the exception 

of 74:36:12:02(3) 

74:36:13 

(Continuous Emissions 

Monitoring Systems) 

Updating the federal reference throughout chapter 13. Proposing approval 

74:36:16 

(Acid Rain Program) We are not taking action on this section. The Acid Rain 

Program is not required to be included in a SIP per

section 110 of the CAA. 

No action needed 

74:36:18 

(Regulations for State Facilities 

In The Rapid City Area) 

Updates 74:36:18:10 (Visible emission limit for 

construction and continuous operation activities) to 

update test method to EPA’s Method 9 in 40 CFR Part

60 Appendix A (July 1, 2012). 

Proposing approval 

74:36:20 

(Construction Permits For New 

Sources Or Modifications) 

Updating the federal reference with regard to 

74:36:20:05. 

Proposing approval 

74:36:21 (Regional Haze 

Program) 

Updating the federal references throughout. Proposing approval
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
                              The Schedule contains summary financial 
                              information extracted from the financial
                              statements for American Mortgage Investors Trust 
                              and is qualified in its entirety by reference to 
                              such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000878774
<NAME>                        AMERICAN MORTGAGE INVESTORS TRUST
<MULTIPLIER>                                         1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       3,784,312
<SECURITIES>                                12,231,180
<RECEIVABLES>                               46,915,355
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              62,952,896
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,056,353
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  61,896,543
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                62,952,896
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,080,669
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               163,001
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                917,668
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   917,668
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           5
<MULTIPLIER>        1
       
<S>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>            APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                 APR-30-1998
<CASH>                           160,598
<SECURITIES>                           0 
<RECEIVABLES>                    561,624
<ALLOWANCES>                      78,736
<INVENTORY>                    1,171,336
<CURRENT-ASSETS>               2,896,045
<PP&E>                         2,279,209
<DEPRECIATION>                 1,060,705
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                10,714,291
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>          2,230,138
<BONDS>                        2,622,293
<COMMON>                         116,730
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  0 
<PREFERRED>                        5,600
<OTHER-SE>                     5,739,530
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  10,714,291
<SALES>                        5,456,106
<TOTAL-REVENUES>               5,456,106
<CGS>                          3,157,656
<TOTAL-COSTS>                  4,844,834
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  15,540
<LOSS-PROVISION>                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>               251,420
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  375,392
<INCOME-TAX>                     149,345
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              226,047
<DISCONTINUED>                   148,316
<EXTRAORDINARY>                        0
<CHANGES>                              0
<NET-INCOME>                      77,731
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                        .01
        

</TABLE>
IU6-/4

ELECTRONIC RECORD

COA # 05-13-00181-CR OFFENSE: 22.02

Jose Ismael Arreola v. The State of

STYLE: Texas COUNTY: Dallas

COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRM TRIAL COURT: 195th Judicial District Court

DATE: 12/5/2014 Publish: NO TCCASE#: F-12-00581-N

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Jose Ismael Arreola v. The !

STYLE: Texas

State of

Petition

cc.# \LLL-M

APPELLANTS CCA Disposition:

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS: DATE:

Kep'f&b , JUDGE:

DATE: 03lt?/siOtS

JUDGE: liA UA*U6X~.

SIGNED: PC:

PUBLISH: DNP:

MOTION FOR

REHEARING IN CCA IS:

JUDGE:

ELECTRONIC RECORD
# C_2012326EN.01004701.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

PART THREE

UNION POLICIES AND INTERNAL ACTIONS

UNION POLICIES AND INTERNAL ACTIONS

TITLE X

SOCIAL POLICY

SOCIAL POLICY

Article 157

(ex Article 141 TEC)

(ex Article 141 TEC)

1.   Each Member State shall ensure that the principle of equal pay for male and female workers for equal work or work of equal value is applied.

2.   For the purpose of this Article, ‘pay’ means the ordinary basic or minimum wage or salary and any other consideration, whether in cash or in kind, which the worker receives directly or indirectly, in respect of his employment, from his employer.

Equal pay without discrimination based on sex means:

| (a) | that pay for the same work at piece rates shall be calculated on the basis of the same unit of measurement; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

that pay for the same work at piece rates shall be calculated on the basis of the same unit of measurement;

| (b) | that pay for work at time rates shall be the same for the same job. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

that pay for work at time rates shall be the same for the same job.

3.   The European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, and after consulting the Economic and Social Committee, shall adopt measures to ensure the application of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation, including the principle of equal pay for equal work or work of equal value.

4.   With a view to ensuring full equality in practice between men and women in working life, the principle of equal treatment shall not prevent any Member State from maintaining or adopting measures providing for specific advantages in order to make it easier for the underrepresented sex to pursue a vocational activity or to prevent or compensate for disadvantages in professional careers.

---
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-99407 and 333-58730) and in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-60544, 333-60536, 333-60546, 333-60548, and
333-60542) of White Electronic Designs Corporation of our report dated November
6, 2002 relating to the financial statements, which appears in this Form 10-K.


PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Phoenix, Arizona
December 18, 2002