alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-40256

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

SANDRA MARITZA GARCIA-BUSTILLO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:09-CR-954-1

Before KING, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Sandra Maritza

Garcia-Bustillo has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Garcia-Bustillo has

not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief

discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for

leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 8, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 10-40256 Document: 00511315446 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/08/2010
##### 



Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned hereby certifies, 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 on Form 10-Q for iPayment, Inc. (Issuer) for the period
September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report):



| | (a) |  | fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (b) |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Issuer.
| | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This Certification is executed as of
November 14, 2003.

/s/ Gregory S. DailyGregory S. DailyChairman and Chief Executive Officer


Page 26 of 27
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

UNITED STATES

v.

Airman First Class RODNEY L. EYSTER

United States Air Force

ACM S32166

11 March 2014

Sentence adjudged 7 June 2013 by SPCM convened at Joint Base Andrews, 

Maryland. Military Judge: Michael A. Lewis (sitting alone).

Approved Sentence: Bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 100 days, and 

reduction to E-1.

Appellate Counsel for the Appellant: Major Lucy H. Carrillo.

Appellate Counsel for the United States: Colonel Don M. Christensen.

Before

HARNEY, WEBER, and PELOQUIN

Appellate Military Judges

This opinion is subject to editorial correction before final release.

PER CURIAM:

The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no error 

materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appellant occurred. Article 66(c), 

UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c); United States v. Reed, 54 M.J. 37, 41 (C.A.A.F. 2000). 

Accordingly, the approved findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT

STEVEN LUCAS

Clerk of the Court
Exhibit 8.1



Significant Subsidiaries of Sociedad Química
y Minera de Chile S.A.



|Name of Subsidiary                                    |  | Country of Incorporation
|----------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------
|SQM Industrial S.A.                                   |  | Chile                   
|SQM Nitratos S.A.                                     |  | Chile                   
|SQM Salar S.A.                                        |  | Chile                   
|Minera Nueva Victoria S.A.                            |  | Chile                   
|Servicios Integrales de Transito y Transferencia S.A. |  | Chile                   
|Soquimich Comercial S.A.                              |  | Chile                   
|SQM Potasios. S.A.                                    |  | Chile                   
|SQM North America Corp.                               |  | USA                     
|SQM Europe N.V.                                       |  | Belgium                 



For a complete list of foreign and domestic subsidiaries see Note
2.5 of the Consolidated Financial Statements.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Steve S.
Sinohui, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company certify that:

1.    
I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of SIN Holdings, Inc.;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly  report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information  included in
this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

4.     I
am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and  procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the  registrant and have:

a)     designed
such disclosure controls and procedures 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  presented in this
report my 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 that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to  materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial  reporting.

5.     I
have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over  financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the board of  directors:

a)     all
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or  operation of internal
control over financial reporting that 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/
Steve S. SinohuiSteve S. Sinohui, Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial
Officer
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: July 24,
2006
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6884

CURTIS J. BROWN, SR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.

(CA-97-2199-2-DCN)

Submitted: October 20, 2005 Decided: October 28, 2005

Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Curtis J. Brown, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief

Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
*We have given Brown the benefit of the ruling in Houston v.

Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988), in determining the date on which he

filed his materials with the district court.

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Curtis J. Brown, Sr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying his motion to appoint counsel. We dismiss

the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal

was not timely filed. 

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the

district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R.

App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal

period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period

under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory

and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S.

257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220,

229 (1960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on

July 27, 2004. The notice of appeal was filed on May 24, 2005.*

Because Brown failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain

an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Why I Supportthe Carbon Pollution Standard

I applaudthe EPA for introducing its new carbon pollution rule, which wouldregulate emissions from power plants, This rule is a historic step that will protectthe health ofAmericans and will help address climate change. This rule is excellent in that it will specifically address the coal industry, an antiquated power source that is extremely detrimental to public healthand that propels climate change. As a researcher, Ivalue good science and sound decisions. The science onclimate change is clear, as is the science on the benefits ofclean air. Safeguarding clean air and addressing climate change are absolutely essential to promoting a healthy, safe, sustainable future. Regulations that reduce pollution save lives, decrease the amount ofmoney spent on illnesses such as asthma, and spur sustainable innovation. Clean air is a public health issue and access to clean air a basic right. In my career, Ihave worked all overthe city ofChicago andhave witnessed first-hand the effects ofpollutionthat emerge from coal plants. Unfortunately, it is usually the poorest residents who live closest to coal plants andwho sufferthe economic andpersonal burdens of illnesses that arise from pollution. The right to clean air should not be sacrificed for the private profit offossil fuel companies; this is detrimental to public health and does not solve our need for sustainable energy. I urge youto enactthe Carbon Pollution Standard and to protect Americans' rights to cleanair and to a healthy, livable future.

Sincerely, JessicaBell Project Manager, Social Neuroscience Lab, University ofChicago jessicabell@uchicago.edu
DIRECTOR COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS



 Exhibit 10.43 
  
 Director Compensation Arrangements 
  
 The directors of Icoria who are also employees receive no compensation for serving on the Board of Directors. 
  
 Icoria has an arrangement to pay each of its non-employee directors a fee of
$25,000 per year. Icoria also reimburses its non-employee directors for reasonable expenses incurred in attending Board and Committee meetings. With the following exceptions, the Chairman of the Board is eligible to receive a 50% premium over the
standard fee and the Audit Committee and Compensation Committee Chairmen are eligible to receive a 20% premium over the standard fee. This excludes duplicate premiums to the Compensation Committee Chairman and the Chairman of the Board. 

 
 Quarterly, each non-employee director receives an option to purchase 2,500
shares each quarter upon grants by the Compensation Committee, except for the Chairman of the Board, who receives an option to purchase 3,000 shares. These options vest in equal monthly increments over 36 months. Upon a change in control these
options become fully vested.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tilden Edwards, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Quinones, J.), rendered May 3, 1989, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reversing the conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, vacating the sentence imposed thereon, and dismissing that count of the indictment; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

As conceded by the People, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree is a lesser included offense of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and, under the circumstances, that count should *846have been dismissed pursuant to CPL 300.40 (3) (b) *(see, People v Vargas,*155 AD2d 565; *People v Rodriguez,*126 AD2d 681).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Balletta and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
# C_2009044EN.01004902.xml

| 21.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/49

---

Action brought on 25 November 2008 — Nadine Trautwein Rolf Trautwein v OHIM (Hunter)

(Case T-505/08)

(2009/C 44/87)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Nadine Trautwein Rolf Trautwein GbR, Research and Development (Leopoldshöhe, Germany) (represented by C. Czychowski, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 September 2008 in Case R 1733/2007-1, as well as the decision of the examiner of 17 October 2007 and admit Community trade mark application No 4829347 for publication; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 September 2008 in Case R 1733/2007-1, as well as the decision of the examiner of 17 October 2007 and admit Community trade mark application No 4829347 for publication; and

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Hunter’ for goods in classes 18 and 25 (Application No 4 829 347)

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), in that the trade mark neither can be denied the necessary distinctive character nor involves a descriptive indication.

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

1

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


                                  Exhibit 32.1
                            CERTIFICATION 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 Tari Inc. (the  "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the period ended  December 31, 2004 as filed with the  Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  the undersigned,  in the
capacities and on the dates indicated  below,  hereby  certifies  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

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 results of operations of the
        Company.



Date:  February 11, 2005

                                                /s/ Theodore Tsagkaris
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Theodore Tsagkaris
                                                President, C.E.O. and Director
                                                (Principal Executive Officer)
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION
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 ZBB Energy Corporation (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Eric C. Apfelbach, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
to my knowledge, that:





(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities and 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.





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





February
      14, 2011
            /s/  Eric C.
      ApfelbachEric
      C. Apfelbach(Principal
      Executive Officer)
Exhibit 13.2





CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Alumina Limited, an
Australian company (the Company), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Annual
Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2013 (the Report) 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 the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                      |  |  |  |                  |  |                         |  | 
|--------------------- |  |  |  | ---------------- |  | ----------------------- |  | 
|Dated: April 24, 2014 |  |  |  | /s/ Chris Thiris |  |                        
|                      |  |  |  | Name:            |  | Chris Thiris            |  | 
|                      |  |  |  | Title:           |  | Chief Financial Officer |  |
# C_2008128EN.01002501.xml

| 24.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/25

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 18 March 2008 — Mechel Nemunas UAB v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

(Case C-119/08)

(2008/C 128/45)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania)

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimant: Mechel Nemunas UAB

Claimant:

Defendant: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos (State Tax Inspectorate attached to the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Lithuania)

Defendant:

Question referred

Are First Council Directive 67/227/EEC (1) and/or Article 33 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (2) to be interpreted as having prohibited a Member State from maintaining, and levying, deductions from income in accordance with the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on the financing of the road maintenance and development programme in the form of the tax which has been described earlier in this order?

1

2

---

(1)  First Council Directive of 11 April 1967 on the harmonisation of legislation of Member States concerning turnover taxes (OJ, English Special Edition 1967, p. 14).

1

(2)  Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 45, p. 1).

2

---
p. 1 CBIC Control Number 

# M " BASF The Chemical Company 

# 356646

US First Class Mail/Email Document Control Office (7407) Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (MC7405M) USEPA Headquarters, Ariel Rios Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W . Washington, DC 20460 Lewis. paul(aDepa .gov ATTN : TSCA Section 4 RE: 40 CFR 799.5089-Test Rule Exemption Application Docket ID Number- EPA- HQ- OPPT - 2009-0112 BASF Corporation - CASRN 98-56-6 

### Dear Sir/Madame: October 16, 2013

This serves as an Application for Exemption, in compliance with 40 CFR 790 .80 and CFR 790 .82 . Test Rule Identification : 40 CFR § 799.5089 Chemical testing requirements for third group of high production volume chemicals (HPV3) Firmsponsoring test : BASF Corporation 100 Park Avenue FlorhamPark, NJ 07932 Contact Person: Diane Pietrzyk Sr . Product Regulation Specialist Product Regulation Center of Expertise 26701 Telegraph Road Southfield, Michigan 48034 Phone: 248-948-2154 Email : diane.pietrzykCa-com Substance for Testing: Benzene, I-chloro-4-(trifluoromethvl)- CASRN - 98-56-6

1 

# RECEIVED OPPT CQIC 20130CT 23 AM

10 :52

E a a` fn oa da os

, r`RnU

BASF Corporation 100 ParkAvenue FlorhamPark N

.J. 07932 www .basf .com/usa

# O" BASF

The Chemical Company BASIS for Exemption: Tests required by the test rule were completed by the (PCBTF) Testing Consortium

. The consortiumhas 13 members, but BASF is not one of them

. Testing Categories : Environmental Fate and Pathways, B Aquatic Toxicity - C1 BASF understands that a testing consortium, the PCBTF Testing Consortium, has already completed the required testing and had submitted the study reports to US EPA. § 790 .99 Statement of financial responsibility: BASF Corporation understands that if this application is granted before the reimbursement period described in section 4(c)(3)(B) of TSCA expires, I must pay fair and equitable reimbursement to the person or persons who incurred or shared in the costs of complying with the requirement to submit data and upon whose data the granting of my application was based. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact the person noted above. Sincerely, BASF Corporation

Diane Pietrzyk Sr. Product Regulation Specialist Cc: Mr . John Schaeffer, US EPA (Email) Bcc: AdamBickel John Erickson Ralph Parod

BASF Corporation 100 Park Avenue FlorhamPark N

.J. 07932 www basr .com/usa
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

James Randell Hall, * From the 104th District

Court of Taylor County,

Trial Court No. 18960B

.

Vs. No. 11

- 14

- 00117

- CR * April 21 , 2016

The State of Texas

, * Memorandum Opinion by Wright, C. J

. (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson , J. , and Bailey, J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that

there is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this

court ’ s opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.