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

RE : Publi c revie wproces s o n th e proposa l t o amen d regulation s 31 0 CM R7.02 , 7.03 , 7.05 , an d 7.26 , an d 31 0 70.00
. I hereb ycertif ythat : Notic e o f th e publi c hearin g wer e publishe do n th e followin g date s i n th e followin g newspaper : Th e Bosto nGlob e May11 , 200 4

Tha t th e notic e specifie dth e date , tim e an d plac e o f th e publi c hearing s t o b e hel do n th e propose damendment s t o 31 0 CM R7.02 , 7.03 , 7.05 , an d 7.26 , an d 31 0 CM R70.00
. Tha t th e notic e specifie dth e location s a t whic hth e propose d regulator yrevision s an d supportin g informatio nwer e availabl e f o r publi c inspection
. Tha t th e propose dregulator yrevision s an d supportin g informatio n wer e availabl e a t th e location s state di n th e notic e whe nth e notice s wer e publishe da s wel l a s a t th e location s o f th e publi c hearing s o n th e dat e o f sai dhearings
. Tha t simila r notice s wer e maile do n o r befor e May10 , 200 4 t o th e Environmenta l Protectio nAgency , t o an yaffecte dloca l o r pollutio ncontro l agencies , an d t o al l know npotentiall y intereste dparties
. I furthe r certif ytha t o n th e followin g date s an d locations , a publi c hearin g wa s conducte db yth e Departmen t o f Environmenta l Protection , pursuan t t o th e abov e notice s an d i n conformanc e wit h MG L Chapte r 30 Aan d th e provision s o f 3 0 CF R51.4(b) : Jun e 22 , 200 4 - Boston , Massachusett s - 9:3 0 A M Massachusett s Departmen t o f Environmenta l Protectio n One Winte r Street , 2 r dFloo r Conferenc e Room Jun e 23 , 200 4 - Springfield , Massachusett s - 9:3 0 A M Massachusett s Departmen t o f Environmenta l Protectio n 43 6 Dwigh t Street , Room30 3 Th e hearin g recor dremaine dope nfo r writte ncomment s unti l 5 : 00PMo n June^<?fJ7)2AD 4
.
ATTES T Rober t T . Donaldso n Hearin g Office r Jul y17 , 200 6
M13003Process Flow DiagramCONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION REMOVED
y

MANDATE

Court of Appeals 

 

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-12-00175-CV

KIMBERLY [KIMBLEY] HAROLD, Appellant

V.

MATTHEW M. CARRICK, CAROLYN M. BERG, DOAN NGUYEN, AND DAVID 

CHAFEY, Appellees

Appeal from the 113th District Court of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 2009-65980).

TO THE 113TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before this Court, on the 10th day of September 2013, the case upon appeal to revise 

or to reverse your judgment was determined. This Court made its order in these words:

This case is an appeal from the final judgment signed by 

the trial court on January 20, 2012. After submitting the case 

on the appellate record and the arguments properly raised by 

the parties, the Court holds that the trial court’s judgment 

contains no reversible error. Accordingly, the Court affirms 

the trial court’s judgment.

The Court orders that the appellant, Kimberly 

[Kimbley] Harold, pay all appellate costs.
The Court orders that this decision be certified below 

for observance.

Judgment rendered September 10, 2013.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Higley and 

Brown. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Radack.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in 

this behalf and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

December 31, 2015 

Date CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

 CLERK OF THE COURT
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Dennis P. Calvert, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
the Quarterly Report of BioLargo, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of BioLargo, Inc.



|                       |  |  |  |     |  |                                      
|---------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------
|                       |  |  | 
|Dated: August 14, 2008 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ DENNIS P. CALVERT                
|                       |  |  |  |     |  | Dennis P. Calvert                    
|                       |  |  |  |     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
BioLargo, Inc. and will be retained by BioLargo, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

I, Charles K. Dargan II, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of BioLargo, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of BioLargo, Inc.



|                       |  |  |  |     |  |                         
|---------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ------------------------
|                       |  |  | 
|Dated: August 14, 2008 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ CHARLES K. DARGAN II
|                       |  |  |  |     |  | Charles K. Dargan II    
|                       |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
BioLargo, Inc. and will be retained by BioLargo, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2008301EN.01002902.xml

| 22.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/29

---

Order of the President of the Court of 10 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-117/08) (1)

1

(2008/C 301/45)

Language of the case: Greek

Language of the case: Greek

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 116, 9.5.2008.

1

---
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10
- 18
- 00144
- CR No. 10
- 18
- 0014 5
- CR No. 10
- 18
- 0014 6
- CR
ANTHONY LYNN THIBODE AUX , Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

From the 87th District Court Freestone County, Texas Trial Court No s . 12
- 154
- CR , 12
- 15 5
- CR

, and 12
- 15 6
- CR

ORDER

On May 29, 2018 , the clerk’s record was filed in th ese appeal s , and no certificate of defendant’s right of appeal was inc luded in the clerk’s record. By letter dated July 11, 2018, the trial court clerk was notified by the Clerk of this Court that a certification of defendant’s right of appeal had not bee n provided to this Court. The Clerk requested the
trial court clerk to file a supplemental clerk’s record containing the trial court’s certification of defendant’s right of appeal regarding the trial court’s determination thatThibodeaux v. State Page 2

appellant is not entitled to post

- conviction DNA testing, signed on May 24, 2018, within 14 days from the date of the letter

. More than 14 days have passed, and n o supplemental clerk’s record containing the trial court’s certification has been filed. In accordance with
Cortez v. St ate , the Clerk has now referred the matter to the Court for further action. See
Cortez v. State , 420 S.W.3d 803, 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (“if the trial

- court clerk does not file the certification after notice from the appellate clerk, ... the appellate c lerk ‘must refer the matter to the appellate court, which will make an appropriate order....’ The ‘appropriate order’ ... is an order from the appellate court directing the trial court to file the certification of the defendant's right of appeal.”). See also T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 25.2(d). Accordingly, the TRIAL COURT is ORDERED to provide the trial court clerk with

a certification of defendant’s right of appeal of the trial court’s determination that appellant is not entitled to post

- conviction DNA testing, signed on May 24, 2018, within 14 days from the date of this Order.
The TRIAL COURT CLERK is ORDERED to file a supplemental clerk’s record containing the trial court’s certification with this Court within 21 days from the date of
this Order.

PER CURIAM
Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Certification ordered Order issued and filed August 8 , 2018
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Fred L. Holliger, certify that: 1.      I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Giant Industries,
Inc.; 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 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 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. Date: March 15, 2004. By:
    
    
    
    /s/ FRED L. HOLLIGERName:
    
    
    Fred L. HolligerTitle:
    
    
    Chief Executive Officer
# C_2008051EN.01005201.xml

| 23.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/52

---

Action brought on 25 December 2007 — Osram v Council

(Case T-466/07)

(2008/C 51/95)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Osram GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: R. Bierwagen, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Council Regulation (EC) No 1205/2007 and order that the contested regulation's effects be upheld until a fresh review regulation comes into force. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Regulation (EC) No 1205/2007 and order that the contested regulation's effects be upheld until a fresh review regulation comes into force.

| — | Order the defendant to bear the costs of the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to bear the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, who is a German producer of a broad range of various types of light bulbs, including integrated electronic fluorescent lamps (CFL-i), seeks the annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1205/2007 of 15 October 2007 imposing anti-dumping duties on imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating in the People's Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 and extending to imports of the same product consigned from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Republic of the Philippines (1), as this regulation only provides for the continuation of the anti-dumping duties for one year instead of the five-year period foreseen in the Basic Regulation (2).

1

2

In support of its application, the applicant submits, first of all, that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment by holding that two entities of the Philips group are ‘Community producers’ within the meaning of Article 4(1)(a) of the Basic Regulation.

Secondly, the applicant submits that the Council committed a manifest error of law by applying a Community interest test even though such a test is not foreseen for an expiry review.

Thirdly, the applicant contends that the Council breached Article 11(2) of the Basic Regulation and abused its powers by limiting the duration of the anti-dumping duties to one year.

Finally, the applicant alleges that the Council based the Community interest test on manifestly erroneous factual findings, made an erroneous assessment and failed to state reasons.

---

(1)  OJ 2007 L 272, p. 1.

1

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1).

2

---
**Order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 14 May 2009 – US Steel Košice v Commission**

**(Case T-22/07)**

Action for annulment – State aid – Act of Accession – Condition imposed on the beneficiary to limit its sales of flat products in the ‘enlarged EU’ – Commission letter interpreting the condition as applying to the Bulgarian and Romanian markets from the date of their accession – Act not amenable to review – Inadmissibility

Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Definition – Measure producing binding legal effects – Letter from a Commission department to a Member State concerning the interpretation of a term and inviting the Member State
to discuss – Not included (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 40-45)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION for annulment of the decision allegedly contained in the Commission’s letter of 22 November 2006, inasmuch as it interprets the condition imposed on the applicant to limit its sales of flat products in the ‘enlarged EU’ as applying also, from 1 January 2007, to the Bulgarian and Romanian markets. |

**Operative part**

1.      The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2.      US Steel Košice s.r.o. is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission.

3.      The Slovak Republic is ordered to bear its own costs.
```

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
333-105380, 333-95705, 333-01969, 333-17823, 333-17825, 333-70656, 333-87890,
and 333-115677 of Form S-8 of our reports dated March 29, 2005, relating to the
financial statements of Applebee's International, Inc. and subsidiaries and
management's report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial
reporting appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Applebee's
International, Inc. and subsidiaries for the year ended December 26, 2004.

*DELOITTE & TOUCHE, LLP*

Kansas City, Missouri
March 30, 2005
```
# C_2020399EN.01002701.xml

| 23.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Arkéa Direct Bank and Others v ECB

(Case T-149/18) (1)

(Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Contribution to the deposit guarantee system or to the single resolution fund by means of irrevocable payment commitments - Tasks entrusted to the ECB - Specific supervision powers of the ECB - Article 4(1)(f) and Article 16(1)(c) and (2)(d) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 - Measure requiring the deduction of the cumulative amount of irrevocable payment commitments outstanding from Tier 1 capital - Absence of individual examination)

(2020/C 399/38)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Arkéa Direct Bank (Puteaux, France) and the nine other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and M. Dalon, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: E. Koupepidou, R. Bax and F. Bonnard, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU for partial annulment, first, of ECB Decision ECB/SSM/2017-9695000CG7B84NLR5984/207 of 19 December 2017, and, second, of ECB Decision ECB-SSM-2019-FRCMU-4 of 14 February 2019.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls paragraph 8 of Decision ECB/SSM/2017-9695000CG7B84NLR5984/207 of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 19 December 2017 and paragraph 5 of Decision ECB-SSM-2019-FRCMU-4 of the ECB of 14 February 2019; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls paragraph 8 of Decision ECB/SSM/2017-9695000CG7B84NLR5984/207 of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 19 December 2017 and paragraph 5 of Decision ECB-SSM-2019-FRCMU-4 of the ECB of 14 February 2019;

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

2.

Orders the ECB to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 7.5.2018.

---
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Notice of Lodging Proposed Consent Decree 

No. C-12-04968 JST

IGNACIA S. MORENO

Assistant Attorney General

Environment & Natural Resources Division

C. SCOTT SPEAR

Trial Attorney

U.S. Department of Justice

Environmental Defense Section

P.O. Box 7611

Washington, D.C. 20044-7611

Tel: (202) 305-1593

Fax: (202) 514-8865

scott.spear@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Defendant 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL 

DIVERSITY, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

ROBERT PERCIASEPE, in his official 

capacity as Acting Administrator of the 

United States Environmental Protection 

Agency,

 Defendant.

No. C-12-04968 JST

NOTICE OF LODGING OF 

PROPOSED CONSENT DECREE

Defendant Robert Perciasepe1

The proposed consent decree should not be signed or entered by the Court at 

, in his official capacity as Acting Administrator of 

the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), hereby lodges with the 

Court a proposed consent decree that contains the terms of a proposed settlement of this 

action. See Attachment 1, Consent Decree. 

1 Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Robert 

Perciasepe, Acting Administrator of EPA, should be substituted as successor to Defendant 

Lisa P. Jackson, former Administrator of EPA.

Case3:12-cv-04968-JST Document21 Filed04/11/13 Page1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

this time. Pursuant to section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7413(g), EPA 

must provide “a reasonable opportunity by notice in the Federal Register to persons who 

are not named as parties or intervenors to the action or matter to comment in writing” 

upon the proposed consent decree. Accordingly, EPA will publish in the Federal Register 

a notice of the proposed consent decree and request comments. After a reasonable 

comment period, EPA will promptly consider any written comments received and, if none 

of the comments disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the proposed consent 

decree is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the 

Clean Air Act, EPA will move for entry of the decree.

Respectfully submitted,

IGNACIA S. MORENO

Assistant Attorney General

Environment & Natural Resources Division

s/ C. Scott Spear .

C. Scott Spear

Trial Attorney

U.S. Department of Justice

Environmental Defense Section

P.O. Box 7611

Washington, D.C. 20044-7611

Tel: (202) 305-1593

Fax: (202) 514-8865

scott.spear@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Defendant

Dated: April 11, 2013

Case3:12-cv-04968-JST Document21 Filed04/11/13 Page2 of 2
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

THOMAS REESE, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-2288

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed May 29, 2019.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for 

Sarasota County; Charles E. Roberts, 

Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, 

and William L. Sharwell, Assistant 

Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Peter Koclanes, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for 

Appellee. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

VILLANTI, ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.