alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2020230EN.01003001.xml

| 13.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Darment v Commission

(Case T-739/18) (1)

(Environment - Fluorinated greenhouse gases - Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 - Placing of hydrofluorocarbons on the market - Decision finding that an undertaking exceeded the quota allocated to it and imposing on it a penalty - Correction of the electronic registry for quotas - Transfer of quota - Authorisation to use a quota - Principle of good administration)

(2020/C 230/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Darment Oy (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: C. Ginter, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland, A.C. Becker and M. Jauregui Gomez, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of the Commission decision of 16 October 2018 finding that the applicant exceeded in 2017 its quota for the placing of hydrofluorocarbons on the market and imposing on it a penalty consisting in the reduction of its quota for the next quota allocation period by 31 370 tonnes of CO2 equivalent.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the European Commission decision of 16 October 2018 finding that Darment Oy exceeded in 2017 its quota for the placing of hydrofluorocarbons on the market and imposing on it a penalty consisting in the reduction of its quota for the next quota allocation period by 31 370 tonnes of CO2 equivalent; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the European Commission decision of 16 October 2018 finding that Darment Oy exceeded in 2017 its quota for the placing of hydrofluorocarbons on the market and imposing on it a penalty consisting in the reduction of its quota for the next quota allocation period by 31 370 tonnes of CO2 equivalent;

| 2. | Orders the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 72, 25.2.2019.

---
Fw: Summary of Interagency Comments under EOs 12866 and 13563 -- SSM Petition

NPRM 2060-AR68

Paul Shriner to: Geoffrey Wilcox, Phil Lorang 01/31/2013 07:59 AM

Cc: Paul Balserak, Lesley Schaaff

History: This message has been replied to and forwarded.

----- Forwarded by Paul Shriner/DC/USEPA/US on 01/31/2013 07:59 AM -----

From: "Frey, Nathan J." <Nathan

_ J.

_ Frey@omb.eop.gov>

To: Paul Shriner/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Nicole Owens/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 01/30/2013 05:47 PM

Subject: Summary of Interagency Comments under EOs 12866 and 13563 -- SSM Petition NPRM

2060-AR68

Attached for your review and comment please find a summary of interagency comments under EOs

12866 and 13563 regarding the proposed rule entitled, State Implementation Plans: Response to

Petition for Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions Applying

to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction; RIN # 2060

‐ AR68.

Thanks and please let me know if you have any questions

Summary of Interagency Comments under EO12866_13563_SSM_Petition_2060-AR68_Proposedrule.docx
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         6,376
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  11,585
<ALLOWANCES>                                   82
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               21,900
<PP&E>                                         345,802
<DEPRECIATION>                                 98,670
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 269,032
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          24,749
<BONDS>                                        132,118
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     104,196
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   269,032
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               121,156
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  67,687
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             11,332
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                42,279
<INCOME-TAX>                                   718
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            41,561
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   41,561
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  2.55
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  2.55
        

</TABLE>
SERVED MAY 20,2011 ^ ^'ARTMENT OF 

.nhiSPORWION 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION .I'J.l OPERATIONS 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC ?0;! iiAY 23 A =|: 53 

IN THE MATTER OF 

HIGH PURITY RESOURCES, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA-2011-0297 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2010SW700275) has been 

assigned to Administrative Law Judge Richard C, Goodwin. All future pleadings and 

other communications regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA 

Hearing Docket, and the other persons on the attached Service List. 

Roimie A. Yoder 

Chief Administrative La:w J 

Attachment - Service List 
FDMS No. FAA-2011-0297 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000^ 

ONE COPY 

Robert M. Scheehl, President 

High Purity Resources, Inc., Respondent 

P.O. Box 1790 

Peralta, NM 87042 

TEL: 505-866-8816 

FAX: 505-217-2080 

Eric E. Anderson, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Southwest Region 

2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663 

Fort Worth, TX 76137-0007 

TEL: (817)222-5078 

FAX: (817) 222-5945 or 5092 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room El2-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Legal Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following 

address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S. W., Wilbur Wright Building— 

Suite 2W1000, Washington, DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-.430.
1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court of

the Northern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3629

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States 

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Eddie Rask, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: July 30, 2007

Filed: August 3, 2007

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Eddie Rask challenges the 100-month prison sentence imposed by the district

court1

 after he pleaded guilty to a drug offense. For reversal, he argues that his

sentence was unreasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553 because his criminal history was

overstated and the court refused to grant his motion for a downward departure under

U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3 (allowing departure for over- or under-represented criminal history).

We affirm, because the district court’s clearly discretionary decision not to depart is

unreviewable, see United States v. Lee, 451 F.3d 914, 918 (8th Cir. 2006) (even after
-2-

United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), discretionary decision not to depart

under Guidelines continues to be unreviewable on appeal), petition for cert. filed,

(U.S. Oct. 30, 2006) (No. 06-7591), and we see no basis to conclude that the sentence-

-imposed at the bottom of the advisory Guidelines range--is unreasonable, see Rita v.

United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2463-68 (U.S. 2007) (discussing application of

presumption of reasonableness to sentence that reflected proper application of

Guidelines); United States v. Harris, No. 06-2892, 2007 WL 1964651, at *3 (8th Cir.

July 9, 2007) (sentence within advisory Guidelines range is presumptively

reasonable).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

__________________________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated financial statements and is qualified in its entirety by 
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER> 1

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                   JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                     MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                           6,384,053
<SECURITIES>                     7,447,095
<RECEIVABLES>                    6,537,876
<ALLOWANCES>                     2,338,175
<INVENTORY>                      2,727,111
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                21,711,793
<PP&E>                           5,030,947
<DEPRECIATION>                   2,054,184
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  25,778,218
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            3,268,157
<BONDS>                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                              0
<COMMON>                            59,275
<OTHER-SE>                      20,221,229
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    25,778,218
<SALES>                         17,244,068
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                17,244,068
<CGS>                            8,646,076
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   17,187,849
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  63,307
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  1,066,286
<INCOME-TAX>                       315,639
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0
<CHANGES>                                0
<NET-INCOME>                       750,647
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          .13 
<EPS-DILUTED>                          .11 
        


</TABLE>
#### Doe Children, In re

23611

04/15/2002

Affirmed
#### Steven “Hoot” GIBSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. O-75-16.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Feb. 19, 1975.

*854Irvin Owen, Shawnee, for appellant.

Larry Derryberry, Atty. Gen., James L. Swartz, Asst. Atty. Gen., Byron L. Wil-hite, Legal Intern, for appellee.

OPINION

BUSSEY, Judge:

Appellant, Steven “Hoot” Gibson, hereinafter referred to as defendant, entered a plea of guilty to the crime of Robbery With Firearms, in the District Court, Pottawatomie County, Case No. CRF-73-28, on December 28, 1973. His punishment was fixed at a term of five (5) years in the State penitentiary, same being suspended. Said suspended sentence was ordered revoked on October 29, 1974, and from said order of revocation, a timely appeal has been perfected to this Court.

The defendant’s sole proposition of error asserts the trial court abused its discretion in revoking the entire five (5) year suspended sentence. The record reveals that competent evidence was presented to the trial court that defendant exposed his private parts to a minor in such a manner as to be calculated to excite lewd thoughts on the part of said minor and that the defendant knowingly associated himself with a known felon.

Where the evidence tends in any degree to support the action of the trial court in revoking a suspended sentence, the trial court’s ruling should not be disturbed. See, Jackson v. State, Okl.Cr., 497 P.2d 475 (1972) and Fain v. State, Okl.Cr., 503 P.2d 254 (1972).

Having carefully examined the record and finding no abuse of discretion by the trial court, the order revoking suspended sentence is hereby, affirmed.

BRETT, P. J., and BLISS, J., concur.
# C_2019280EN.01001401.xml

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Obvodní soud pro Prahu 5 (Czech Republic) lodged on 5 November 2018 — HJ v II

(Case C-680/18)

(2019/C 280/17)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Obvodní soud pro Prahu 5

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: HJ

Defendant: II

By order of 11 April 2019, the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) held that the request for a preliminary ruling was inadmissible.

---
#### Trenhaile v. State

19159

4/28/97

Affirmed
155 P.3d 690

INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I

April 5, 2007

27281

#### Jou v. Argonaut Ins. Co.

Affirmed
APHIS-Approved Official Establishments in China Authorized to 

Process Swine Casings

Establishment 

number: Name:

4300/05018 Hunan Teijsen Casings & Food Co., Ltd.

3300/05023 Zhejiang G&F Casing Co., Ltd.

3200/05048 Yancheng Lianyi Casing 

Products Co., Ltd.

3200/05005 Taizhou Cai Food Co., Ltd.

3200/05004 Jintan Casing Co., Ltd.

3100/05028 Shanghai Star Casing

3100/05020 Shanghai Natural Casing 

Co., Ltd.

09/2020 APHIS-Approved Official Establishments in China Authorized to Process Swine Casings 1-1
<PAGE>   1
EXHIBIT 11.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 BELDEN & BLAKE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES


                      COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON
                         AND COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                                        

                                                                   Three months                 Nine months
                                                                ended September 30,          ended September 30,
                                                            --------------------------    --------------------------
                                                                1995           1994          1995            1994
                                                            -----------    -----------    -----------     ----------
<S>                                                         <C>            <C>            <C>             <C> 
Average  shares outstanding .......................           9,741,156      7,084,737      7,992,704       7,078,707
Net effect of conversion of stock options and  
  warrants ........................................                  --             --             --              --

Total primary shares ..............................           9,741,156      7,084,737      7,992,704       7,078,707

Net effect of convertible securities ..............                  --             --             --              --

Total fully diluted shares ........................           9,741,156      7,804,737      7,992,704       7,078,707

Net income ........................................         $ 1,154,942    $ 1,079,937    $ 2,809,662    $  2,992,104
                                                                                                            
Less preferred stock dividends ....................              45,000        45,000         135,000         135,000
                                                                                                            
Net income applicable to common  shares                                                                              
  primary .........................................           1,109,942     1,034,937       2,674,662       2,857,104

Plus 7.5% preferred stock dividends ...............                  --            --               --              -- 
Net income applicable to common  shares                       
  fully diluted ...................................           1,109,942     1,034,937       2,674,662       2,857,104
Earnings per common share primary .................                 .11           .15             .33             .40

Earnings per common share fully diluted  ..........                 .11           .15             .33             .40
</TABLE>



The effects of common stock options, warrants and convertible securities have
not been included in the computation as their effect is either not dilutive or
antidilutive.





                                       17
# C_2019004EN.01001802.xml

| 7.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 4/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 4/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel d’Aix-En-Provence (France) lodged on 23 October 2018 — Criminal proceedings against B S and C A

(Case C-663/18)

(2019/C 4/25)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel d’Aix-En-Provence

Parties to the main proceedings

B S and C A

Interveners: Ministère public, Conseil national de l’ordre des pharmaciens

Question referred

The Court of Justice of the European Union is requested to deliver a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Articles 28, 29, 30 and 32 TFEU, of Regulations No 1307/2013 (1) and No 1308/2013 (2) and of the principle of the free movement of goods, referring to it the question whether those provisions must be interpreted as meaning that the derogating provisions introduced by the arrêté (Decree) of 22 August 1990, by limiting the cultivation, industrialisation and marketing of hemp solely to fibre and seeds, impose a restriction that is not in accordance with [EU] law.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 608).

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 671).

---
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 23


                        CONSENT OF HEIN & ASSOCIATES LLP,
                  INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of
EMRISE Corporation (Nos. 333-74281, 333-71035, 333-69571, 333-12567 and
333-65528) on Form S-8 of our report dated December 13, 2006 related to our
audits of the consolidated financial statements and the financial statement
schedule, which appear in the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Emrise Corporation
for the year ended December 31, 2005.

/S/ HEIN & ASSOCIATES LLP

Irvine, California
December 13, 2006
#### Business Brokers Hawai'i, Inc. v. FTF, Inc.

22323

06/14/2000

Vacated & Remanded, Affirmed in part
#### Y.Y. Valley Corp. v. Aurio

16080 & 17177

1/30/97

Affirmed in part, Vacated and Remanded in part
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-22-00157-CR

___________________________

On Appeal from County Criminal Court No. 4

Denton County, Texas

Trial Court No. CR-2021-03653-D

Before Bassel, Womack, and Wallach, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

BOBBY LYNN PRESTON JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

Appellant Bobby Lynn Preston Jr. appeals his conviction for misdemeanor 

driving while intoxicated. On October 4, 2022, and October 25, 2022, we notified 

Appellant by letter that the trial-court clerk responsible for preparing the record in 

this appeal had informed this court that Appellant had made no arrangements to pay 

for the clerk’s record as the appellate rules require. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(a)(2). In 

our notice, we warned that we would dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution 

unless, within ten days, Appellant arranged to pay for the clerk’s record and provided 

this court with proof of payment. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(c), 37.3(b), 44.3. 

Appellant has not made payment arrangements for the clerk’s record; thus, we dismiss 

his appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b), 42.3(b), 43.2(f).

Appellant must pay all costs of this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

Per Curiam

Do Not Publish

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: December 8, 2022
December 10, 1997

20449

#### Williams v. Silla

Affirmed