alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Rex Gifford BURTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION; Community Reach Center, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 04-1534.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Oct. 5, 2005.

Rex Gifford Burton, Westminster, CO, pro se.

Kurt J. Bohn, Office of the United States Attorney, Yvette G. Keesee, Social Security Administration, Office of General Counsel, Michele Kelley, Denver, CO, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before SEYMOUR, KELLY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

SEYMOUR, Circuit Judge.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unani*636mously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Plaintiff-appellant Rex Gifford Burton appeals from an order of the district court that dismissed his suit without prejudice because defendant-appellee Social Security Administration (SSA) has not yet issued a final decision on his pending application for benefits. Mr. Burton contends on appeal that: (1) SSA is withholding his benefits even though he has been approved for a disability; (2) the Colorado Driver’s License office refused to issue him an I.D. for cashing checks; (3) age discrimination is prevalent in the determination of money benefits; and (4) defendant-appellee Community Reach Center does not intervene to help him with his problems.

Because SSA has not issued a final decision on Mr. Burton’s application, neither the district court nor this court has power to consider his complaint against defendants. *See*42 U.S.C. § 405(g). We therefore affirm the district court’s order dismissing the suit without prejudice to refiling after SSA has issued a final decision. We note, in addition, that Mr. Burton, raised only two issues in the district court: (1) that SSA and Community Reach Center will not tell him if his application for benefits has been approved or denied; and (2) SSA is withholding benefits. Even if we had jurisdiction now, we would not address his other issues, which were raised for the first time on appeal. *See Singleton v. Wulff,*428 U.S. 106, 120, 96 S.Ct. 2868, 49 L.Ed.2d 826 (1976). Finally, federal courts generally do not have jurisdiction over complaints that a State denied a person a driver’s license.

Mr. Burton has not demonstrated the existence of a reasoned, nonfrivolous issue to be raised on appeal. Therefore, his motion for leave to proceed in this court without prepayment of costs and fees must be denied. *See Coppedge v. United States,*369 U.S. 438, 446, 82 S.Ct. 917, 8 L.Ed.2d 21 (1962).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of *636orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
**Exhibit 32**     Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of PotashCorporation of Saskatchewan Inc. (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge,that:     This Amendment No. 2 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004(the “Form 10-K/A”), of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in this Amendment No. 2 fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.Date:November 18, 2005         By:  /s/ WILLIAM J. DOYLE    William J. Doyle
# C_2020423EN.01000502.xml

| 7.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Burgo Group SpA v Gestore dei Servizi Energetici SpA — GSE

(Case C-92/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Promotion of cogeneration - Provision of national law establishing a support scheme - Scheme supporting non-high-efficiency cogeneration plants extended beyond 31 December 2010)

(2020/C 423/07)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Burgo Group SpA

Defendant: Gestore dei Servizi Energetici SpA — GSE

Interveners: Ministero dello Sviluppo economico, Autorità per l’Energia elettrica e il Gas

Operative part of the judgment

Article 12(3) of Directive 2004/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 on the promotion of cogeneration based on a useful heat demand in the internal energy market and amending Directive 92/42/EEC must be interpreted as not precluding a provision of national law which allows cogeneration plants which are not high-efficiency cogeneration plants within the meaning of that directive to continue to be eligible, even after 31 December 2010, for a cogeneration support scheme under which they are, inter alia, exempt from the obligation to purchase green certificates.

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 27.5.2019.

---
Exhibit 99.1

                    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 Premier Development & Investment,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, J. Scott Sitra, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(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 result of operations of the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of this
14th day of August, 2006.



/s/ J. Scott Sitra
--------------------------------------
J. Scott Sitra
President and Chief Executive Officer
Premier Development & Investment, Inc.
**Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 23 April 2009 – Commission v Spain**

**(Case C‐321/08)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2005/29/EC – Unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

1.                     *Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – National system pleaded as justification
– Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 9)*

2.                     *Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration
– Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 10)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Declares that by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’), the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Certification of the Principal Financial Officer**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S. C. Section 1350**

 

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K ofKaiser Group Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ending December 31,2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Marian P. Hamlett, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

 

(1)   TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

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

 

 
| March  28, 2006 | /s/ Marian P. Hamlett    |   |
|-----------------|--------------------------|--------|
|            | Marian  P. Hamlett,      |
|            | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
#### Samuel Freier, Doing Business as Fresa Fabrics Co., Appellant, *v.*Ashour Shayani, Doing Business as Shayani Exporting Co., Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

October 29, 1959.

Hofstadter, Aurelio and Tilzer, JJ., concur.
# C_2009141EN.01003404.xml

| 20.6.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 141/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/34

---

Order of the President of the Court of 12 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

(Case C-234/08) (1)

1

2009/C 141/64

Language of the case: English

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 183, 19.7.2008.

1

---
# C_2020215EN.01001902.xml

| 29.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 215/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/19

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Rensen Shipbuilding BV

(Case C-192/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff classification - Heading 8901 - Ship hulls - Maritime navigation - Vessels, designed as seagoing - Meaning)

(2020/C 215/23)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Rensen Shipbuilding BV

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane district Rotterdam

Operative part of the judgment

Additional note 1 to Chapter 89 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the version resulting from Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that vessels which, because of the properties inherent in their construction, are able to sail only about 21 nautical miles off the coast in the event of bad weather do not come within the concept of ‘vessels, designed as seagoing’ in that Additional note.

---

(1)  OJ C 164, 13.5.2019.

---
<PAGE>

               CRAFTMADE INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES
                                   EXHIBIT 21


The following schedule lists the subsidiaries of Craftmade International, Inc.,
a Delaware corporation, as of August 31, 2002:


Corporate Name                                          State of Organization
--------------                                          ---------------------
Durocraft International, Inc.                           Texas
C/D/R Incorporated                                      Delaware
Trade Source International, Inc. (TSI)                  Delaware
TSI Prime Asia Limited                                  Hong Kong
Elitex Development Limited                              Hong Kong
Prime/Home Impressions, LLC
   (in which TSI owns a 50% interest)                   North Carolina
Design Trends, LLC
   (in which Craftmade owns a 50% interest)             Delaware
Law Offices
       Neuberger, Quinn, Gielen, Rubin & Gibber, P. A
                              
                         27TH FLOOR
                       COMMERCE PLACE
                      ONE SOUTH STREET
                BALTIMORE,MARYLAND 21202-3201
                              
                        (410)332-8550
                              
                      FEBRUARY 20, 1996

HOWARD S. SCHWARTZ
FAX NO.
(410)332-8536
(410)332-8594



VIA FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
AND FIRST-CLASS MAIL


William l. Balfour,  Esquire
OBER, KALER, GRIMES & SHRIVER, P.C.
120 East Baltimore Street
Baltimore, Maryland   21202-1643


                        Re:  Henderson's Wharf/Purchase of
                               Unit Owned by Anne Cook


Dear Bill:

     This letter will confirm our clients' agreement with
respect to the captioned transaction.  My Client,
Henderson's Wharf Baltimore, L.P. ("Buyer"), has agreed to
make an outright purchase of the condominium unit and
parking unit (collectively, "Unit") owned by your client,
Anne B. Cook ("seller"), for the purchase price of
approximately $92,000.  The purchase price is composed of
the payoff amount of the Seller's mortgage (currently
approximately $87,000) plus a premium of $5,000.00.
Accordingly, it will not be necessary to conduct an
appraisal of the Unit as originally contemplated by Seller
and Buyer in the Agreement of Purchase and sale by and
between Seller and Buyer and dated October 24, 1994 (the
"Agreement").  Additionally, Buyer has agreed to pay all
transfer and recordation taxes in connection with this
transaction.

     In order to complete this transaction, you will deliver
to me the Deed (in the Form of Exhibit D-1 attached to the
Agreement) that was fully executed by seller ("Deed").  I
will call you the day before settlement so that you may
properly date the Deed.  Along with the Deed, you will
deliver to me the Buyer's $1,500.00 and interest thereto
that have been held in an escrow  account ("Funds").  I will
hold the deed and the Funds in escrow pending my delivery to
you of:  (1)  $5,000.00; (2)   a Settlement Sheet
showing the payoff of the Seller's mortgage; and (3) written
authorization to disburse Seller's escrowed funds.

                         Sincerely,

                         HOWARD S. SCHWARTZ


HSS/tms
cc:  Mr. Terrence Sullivan
      Mr. Charles Intravaia
      Richard A. Monfred, Esquire
Exhibit 99.1



VERTEL CORPORATION



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Vertel Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Marc E. Maassen, President and Chief Executive Officer of 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 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 result of operations of the Company.
|--- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





|/s/    MARC E.
MAASSEN                               
|-----------------------------------------------------
|Marc E. Maassen President and Chief Executive
Officer



May 20, 2003



A signed original
of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Vertel Corporation and will be retained by Vertel Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



29
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-20-00373-CV

___________________________

Original Proceeding

43rd District Court of Parker County, Texas

Trial Court No. 14266

Before Birdwell, J.; Sudderth, C.J.; and Kerr, J.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

IN RE PAT LEATHERMAN, Relator
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator has not responded to this court’s February 5, 2021 letter requesting that

relator’s counsel either file a motion to dismiss this original proceeding or inform the 

court whether relator wishes to continue the original proceeding. Because we have

received no response to our letter, and because the trial court has commenced action

on relator’s motion for DNA testing, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

Per Curiam

Delivered: February 25, 2021
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3283

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Lorenzo Markey Cook, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 10, 2010

Filed: May 13, 2010

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Lorenzo Cook pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute at least 5 grams of

cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(b)(1)(B). The district court1

denied his motion for a continuance of sentencing until Congress acted on pending

legislation, and, declining to vary downward, sentenced him at the bottom of the

applicable Guidelines range to 92 months in prison. Cook appeals. His counsel has

moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

1

The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa.
arguing that the court abused its discretion in denying a continuance and a variance,

and that the sentence is unreasonable because it is greater than necessary.

We hold that the court committed no procedural error in sentencing Cook,

imposed a substantively reasonable sentence, and did not abuse its discretion in

declining to vary downward. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007) (in

reviewing sentence, appellate court first ensures that district court committed no

significant procedural error, then considers substantive reasonableness of sentence

under abuse-of-discretion standard; if sentence is within Guidelines range, appellate

court may apply presumption of reasonableness); United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d

997, 1004 (8th Cir. 2005) (describing abuse of discretion). We also find no abuse of

discretion in the denial of a continuance. See United States v. Vesey, 330 F.3d 1070,

1071-72 (8th Cir. 2003) (district courts are afforded broad discretion when ruling on

requests for continuances, which should be granted only when requesting party has

shown compelling reason). 

Reviewing the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no

nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and we

affirm.

______________________________

-2-
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony McIntyre, Appellant.

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: There is no merit to defendant’s argument that County Court erred in receiving into evidence a *638package containing cocaine, which the proof demonstrated was sold by defendant to an undercover police officer. Although the police chemist acknowledged that the heat seal of the exhibit’s outer plastic bag was not fully intact before she actually tested the substance, she also asserted that the seal either partially "had not caught” or that the "seal came apart” as she was handling the bag and "looking for a place to cut into it”. In any event, the exhibit’s inner plastic bag containing the narcotics was knotted and sealed with tape bearing the date of the crime, the crime report number and the initials of the undercover police officer who seized the evidence. The testimony of the officer and the police chemist established that the inner plastic bag containing the cocaine had not been tampered with, and was the same bag that was purchased by the officer and tested by the chemist. The record thus contains reasonable assurances of the identity and unchanged condition of the packet sold by defendant *(see, People v Green,*155 AD2d 880, *lv denied*75 NY2d 813; *People v Rice,*137 AD2d 845, *lv denied*71 NY2d 1032). In the circumstances presented, we conclude that the testimony concerning the condition of the seal of the outer bag bears on the weight to be accorded the evidence rather than its admissibility *(see, People v Connelly,*35 NY2d 171, 175).

We have reviewed the other issues raised by defendant and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Egan, J. — Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 1st Degree.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Den-man, Green and Lowery, JJ.
Exhibit 4.3


 


Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We consent to the
reference made to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Part B of the Prospectus
and to the use of our report dated January 11, 2017, in this Registration Statement (Form S-6 No. 333-214672) of Smart Trust 289,
comprising Smart Trust, Dorsey Wright International Momentum Trust, Series 6.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


January 11, 2017