alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2004262EN.01002601.xml

| 23.10.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/26

---

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 8 July 2004

in Case T-200/02, Vassilios Tsarnavas v Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(Officials - Late establishment of staff report - Claim for annulment - Claim for damages - Inadmissibility)

(2004/C 262/49)

Language of the case: French

In Case T-200/02, Vassilios Tsarnavas, former official of the Commission of the European Communities, residing at Brussels (Belgium), represented by N. Lhoëst, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities (Agent: D. Martin, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of the Commission's decision rejecting in part the applicant's complaint and claim for damages of EUR 12 500 as compensation for the loss allegedly suffered because of the delay in establishing his staff report for the period from 1 July 1997 to 30 June 1999 — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, E. Martins Ribeiro and I. Labucka, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 8 July 2004 in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the action as inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

| 2. | Orders the parties to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 202 of 24.8.2002.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         503,998
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,232,364
<ALLOWANCES>                                   62,500
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2,217,684
<PP&E>                                         1,876,484
<DEPRECIATION>                                 946,631
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 4,478,978
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,936,939
<BONDS>                                        3,013,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       75,625
<OTHER-SE>                                     (868,552)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   4,478,978
<SALES>                                        2,835,057
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2,835,057
<CGS>                                          2,189,663
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2,189,663
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               2,500,145
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             113,245
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,941,778)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   14,026
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,955,804)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,955,804)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.26)
        

</TABLE>
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC StaffConsolidated Guidance About Materials Licenses (NUREG-1556)

# ConsolidatedGuidance About Materials Licenses: Program-Specific Guidance About Master Materials Licenses, Final Report (NUREG-1556, Volume 10, Revision 1)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG-1556, Volume 10, Revision 1 (PDF – 1.35 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** May 2016**Date Published:** June 2016

**Prepared by:**R. BrowderJ. CookR. ElliottR. JohnsonO. Masnyk BaileyK. G. NullS. W. SeeleyS. S. Xu

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and SafeguardsU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555-0001

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This technical report contains information intended to provide program-specific guidance for existing Master Materials Licenses to assist licensees who apply for amendments to their licenses and assist Federal agencies in preparing new applications for a Master Materials License. In particular, it describes the types of information needed to complete U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Form 313, "Application for Materials License." This document describes both the methods acceptable to NRC license reviewers in implementing the regulations and the techniques used by the reviewers in evaluating the application to determine whether the proposed activities are acceptable for licensing purposes.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
#### NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. TENNESSEE PACKERS, INC., FROSTY MORN DIVISION, Respondent.

No. 16061.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

May 4, 1965.

*949Paul J. Spielberg, N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., Arnold Ordman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, Warren M. Davison, Attorney, N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., on brief, for petitioner.

George V. Gardner, Washington, D. C., Frederick F. Holroyd, Charleston, W. Va., Gardner, Gandal & Holroyd, Washington, D. C., on brief, for respondent.

Before WEICK, Chief Judge, MILLER, Circuit Judge, and McALLISTER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The National Labor Relations Board seeks enforcement of its order of February 27, 1964, directing the respondent to cease and desist from certain unfair labor practices found by it to exist on the part of the respondent, to reinstate three of its employees to their former or substantially equivalent positions, and to make them whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of the respondent’s discriminatory conduct. Its brief in support of its petition for enforcement reviews the evidence and authorities in support of its order.

Respondent’s brief makes no response on the merits, and relies solely on the contention that the unfair labor practice complaint involved in the case occurred more than six months prior to the filing of the charge with the Board, by reason of which, under Section 10(b) of the Act, Section 160(b), Title 29, United States Code, the Board was barred from issuing the complaint. In support of this contention, the alleged unfair labor practice is analyzed and discussed at some length.

The Board, in response, points out that this objection was not raised before the Board and that under Section 10 (e) of the Act, Section 160(e), Title 29, United States Code, shall not be considered by the Court. We agree with this contention of the Board. N. L. R. B. v. Ochoa Fertilizer Corp., 368 U.S. 318, 322, 82 S.Ct. 344, 7 L.Ed.2d 312; N. L. R. B. v. Globe-Wernicke Systems Co., etc., 336 F.2d 589, C.A. 6th.

Since respondent’s brief failed to challenge the Board’s order on the merits, that issue is considered as having been abandoned and will not be considered by the Court on this review. N. L. R. B. v. Kentucky Utilities Co., 182 F.2d 810, 814, C.A. 6th; Mid-Southern Foundation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 262 F.2d 134, 139, C.A. 6th, cert. denied, 359 U.S. 991, 79 S.Ct. 1120, 3 L.Ed.2d 979; Viles v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 233 F.2d 376, 379, C.A. 6th.

Decree of enforcement will be entered.
Exhibit 32.2








Chief Financial Officer’s Certification required under Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In connection with the annual report of TIB Financial Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Christopher G. Marshall, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that this Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that, to my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.








/s/Christopher G. MarshallDate:  March 31, 2010
Christopher G. Marshall

Chief Financial Officer











A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to TIB Financial Corp. and will be retained by TIB Financial Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>


EXHIBIT 99.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

   PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

         The undersigned executive officer of Pittsburgh Financial Corp. (the
"Registrant") hereby certifies that the Registrant's Form 10-Q for the period
ended March 31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained therein
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Registrant.

                                   /s/ Michael J. Kirk
                                   --------------------------------------------
                                   Name: Michael J. Kirk
                                   Title: Executive Vice President and
                                          Chief Financial Officer

Date: May 15, 2003

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 32.a



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 BCTC IV Assignor Corp. (the "registrant") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John P. Manning, Principal Executive Officer of the registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge, after due inquiry:



|(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 registrant.



|                |  |                            
|--------------- |  | ---------------------------
|Date:           |  |                            
|August 14, 2008 |  | /s/ John P. Manning        
|                |  |                            
|                |  | John P. Manning            
|                |  | Principal Executive Officer
|                |  |                            
|                |  |                            



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other

document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the registrant and will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Patricia Smith, Appellant, v City of New York et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

[773 NYS2d 571]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jacobson, J.), dated April 25, 2003, which denied her motion for a trial preference pursuant to CPLR 3403 (a) (3).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion, with costs, and the motion is granted.

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion for a trial preference on the ground of her indigency *(see*CPLR 3403 [a] [3]; *Hoyt v Kazel,*265 AD2d 527, 528 [1999]; *Cenname v Lindholm,*69 AD2d 848, 849 [1979]). It is undisputed that the plaintiff is receiving public assistance, food stamps, and medical assistance due to her indigency. Under the circumstances of this case, the plaintiff’s application for a trial preference should have been granted *(see Hoyt v Kazel, supra).*Altman, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Mastro, JJ., concur.
# C_2004118EN.01003508.xml

| 30.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/35

---

Removal from the register of Case C-20/04 (1)

1

(2004/C 118/74)

By order of 29 April 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-20/04: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.

---

(1)  OJ C 59 of 6.3.2004.

1

---
TABLE 30. SHEEP FRESH MANURE CHARACTERISTICS *

================================================================================== Parameter Units a Total Parameter Concentration Parameter Mass No of ------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------lb/day/----------- Observ minimum maximum median mean std dev head 1000 lb

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- Manure b lb/60 lb/day 29 1.4 4.3 2.2 2.4 0.65 2.4 40 Urine %manure 10 20 50 38 37 8.6 0.87 15 Density lb/ft 3 11 59 65 62 62 2.1 - - TS %wb 39 15 46 26 28 6.9 0.67 11 TSS %db 1 80 80 80 80 - 0.54 9.0 VS %db 12 75 86 82 82 3.2 0.55 9.1 BOD 5 mg/kg 8 16421 47784 27937 27938 11317 0.067 1.1 COD mg/kg 33 162126 351691 268961 264002 48491 0.63 11 TOC mg/kg 2 29955 41025 35490 35490 5535 0.085 1.4 TKN lb/ton 38 12 31 20 21 5.7 0.025 0.42 NH 3 N %tkn 1 28 28 28 28 - 0.0069 0.12 P 2 O 5 lb/ton 36 5.1 18 9.2 9.4 2.8 0.011 0.19 PO 4 %p2o5 3 20 58 33 37 16 0.0042 0.069 K2 O lb/ton 37 6.7 31 19 19 6.3 0.023 0.38 B lb/ton 2 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.00010 0.000024 0.00040 Ca lb/ton 7 3.4 21 12 12 5.0 0.014 0.23 Cd lb/ton 1 0.00036 0.00036 0.00036 0.00036 - 0.00000043 0.0000072 Cl lb/ton 1 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 - 0.0053 0.089 Cr lb/ton 1 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 - 0.0000017 0.000029 Cu lb/ton 6 0.0072 0.015 0.0098 0.010 0.0023 0.000012 0.00020 Fe lb/ton 5 0.27 0.48 0.32 0.34 0.072 0.00041 0.0068 Mg lb/ton 7 1.4 3.7 2.6 2.8 0.86 0.0033 0.056 Mn lb/ton 4 0.020 0.051 0.036 0.036 0.016 0.000042 0.00071 Mo lb/ton 4 0.00033 0.046 0.0020 0.012 0.019 0.000015 0.00025 Na lb/ton 4 1.8 5.5 4.1 3.9 1.3 0.0047 0.078 Ni lb/ton est c - - - 0.013 - 0.000016 0.00026 Pb lb/ton 1 0.0042 0.0042 0.0042 0.0042 - 0.0000050 0.000084 S lb/ton 4 1.6 2.0 1.8 1.8 0.14 0.0021 0.035 Zn lb/ton 5 0.038 0.11 0.050 0.058 0.026 0.000070 0.0012 ADF %db 2 49 64 57 57 7.5 0.38 6.3 CF %db 1 33 33 33 33 - 0.22 3.7 CP %db 3 13 17 16 15 1.7 0.10 1.7 EE %db 1 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 - 0.019 0.32 NDF %db 2 59 72 66 66 6.5 0.44 7.3 EC cols/100 gm 2 6.30E+07 9.40E+08 5.02E+08 5.02E+08 4.40E+08 5.45E+09 9.09E+10 FC cols/100 gm 3 1.60E+08 1.60E+09 1.60E+09 1.12E+09 6.80E+08 1.21E+10 2.02E+11 FS cols/100 gm 5 3.50E+07 3.80E+09 9.10E+07 1.56E+09 1.83E+09 1.69E+10 2.82E+11 TC cols/100 gm 4 4.50E+07 1.60E+09 1.73E+08 4.98E+08 6.39E+08 5.40E+09 9.00E+10

================================================================================== * References:Biological & Agricultural Engineering Dept, North Carolina State University, Jan 1994. Agronomic Division, North Carolina Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services.

a All concentrations as is or wet basis (wb) except as noted dry matter basis (db); all mass values wb. b Feces and urine as voided.

cMean value extrapolated from other data; measured values not available. 

### Sheep-Fresh Manure file:///G:/Share/EMRAD 2007-2011/2011/4-30/References/Biomass - M...

1 of 1 1/13/2011 11:55 A M
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

v. 

RIVES MILLER GROGAN,

Defendant. 

Case No. 24-cr-353 (CRC)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Robin M. 

Merriweather, docketed on August 5, 2024. See ECF No. 35. Under Federal Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 72(b)(2), a party may serve and file specific written objections to such a Report and 

Recommendation within 14 days of being served. The Court has received no written objections 

to the Report and Recommendation within the 14-day deadline. 

Having carefully reviewed the findings and conclusions contained in Magistrate Judge 

Merriweather’s Report and Recommendation, the Court will adopt in full the Report and 

Recommendation as the findings and conclusions of this Court.

Upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation, the absence of objections, and 

the entire record, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is adopted by the Court; and it is

ORDERED that the parties’ request to cap Defendant’s sentence and maximum fine at a 

petty offense level is randomly referred to a Magistrate.
2

SO ORDERED.

CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER

United States District Judge

Date: August 23, 2024
C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS

I N RE : LA WR E N CE W. F E W, Relator. § § § § § § No . 0 8- 08 -0 00 71 -C R

AN ORI GI

NAL PROCEEDI

NG I N MANDA MUS

MEMORAN DUM OP INION ON P ETIT ION F OR WRIT OF M ANDAM US L awr ence Fe w has filed a

second pr o se petition for wr it of mandamus re questing this Court issue an orde r compe lling the trial court to appoint an attorney to repre sent Fe w in his petition for habea s corpus. Manda

mus relief is denie d. Mand a mus re lie f w ill no t be g ra nte d a bs e nt t he re la tor ’s e sta

bli sh ing : ( 1) no oth e r a de qu a te

reme dy exis ts at law; and (2 ) t h at t he ac t he see ks to compel is minis terial. Dicke ns v. Court of Appeals for the Sec ond Supreme Judicial Dis t. of Tex. , 727 S.W .2d 542, 548 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). An a ct is minist eria l if it does not involve the ex erc ise of any discretion. Sta te e xre l. H ill

v . Cou rt of

Ap pe als for the Fi

fth Di st. , 34 S.W .3d 924, 927 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). A discre tionary function may

become minist eria l when the f acts and circ umstances dictate but one rational decision. Buntion v. Harmon , 827 S.W .2d 945, 948 n.2 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). This Court is empowered to dire ct a tria l co u rt t o consi der a nd rule on a

proper ly filed pending motion if: (1) the rea ltor has asked the trial court to r ule; and (2) the tr ial court ha s either ref used to r ule, or fa iled to rule within a re asonable time. Se e Ba rn es v. S tat e , 832 S.W .2d 424, 426- 27 (T e x. Ap p. -- Ho us ton

[1st Di st. ] 199 2, or ig . pro c e e din g ). I t is the re la tor ’s burd e n to pr ov ide thi s2

Co u rt w it h a s u f f ic ie n t r e c o r d

to e s ta b li s h h is r ig h t t o ma

n d a mu s r e li e f

. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.3(j)(1) (A) ( appendix to mandamus petition must c ontain a copy of any order complained of

, or

any oth e r d oc ume nt s ho wi ngthe ma tte r c omp la ine d o f) ; T EX . R. A PP . P. 52 .7 (a )( 1) (r e la tor mus t f ile with the mandamus petition a c o p y o f eve ry document that is materia l to his claim for relief ); Gr e e nwe ll v . Co ur t of

Ap pe als fo r th e T

hirte e nth Di

st. , 159 S.W .3d 645, 648 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). I n th is c a se, Few req ue sts that th is C ou

rt or de r t he tr ia l c ourt

to a pp oin t an atto rn e y

to repr esent him in a habe as cor pus action. Although Fe w has attache d file-stampe d copies of motions “To Request the Court For Appointment of Attorney ,” ther e is no evidenc e that these motions have been pr esente d to the trial court, a nd there fore no evidence that the tria l court has r efuse d to rule. As Relator ha s failed to provide this Court with a record sufficient to establish his rig ht to mandamus relief , the petition is denied.

KENNET H R. CARR, J ustice Marc h 27, 2008 B e f o r e C h e w , C

. J. , M c C l u r e , a n d C ar r , JJ. McClure, J., not participating (Do Not Publish)
October 2020

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Helping People Help the Land 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Conservation Practice Overview

Tree Shrub Site Preparation (Code 490) 

Treatment of sites to enhance the success of natural or

artificial regeneration of desired trees and/or shrubs. 

Practice Information 

Apply the tree/shrub site preparation conservation practice

to control undesirable vegetation, remove slash and debris,

or alter site conditions in order to provide optimum site

conditions for planting or seeding of woody species, or to

encourage natural regeneration of desirable trees and

shrubs. 

This practice applies to understocked areas, areas planned for tree planting following harvest, areas

where a land cover change to woody plants is desired, or areas having undesirable vegetation that

inhibits or competes with the establishment of preferred woody species. 

Application of this practice requires consideration of— 

• Protecting existing desirable vegetation; 

• Treating remaining slash and debris so it does not harbor harmful levels of pests, hinder needed

equipment operation, or create undue fire hazard; 

• Controlling erosion and/or runoff; 

• Cost-effectivess of the chosen method; 

• Protecting cultural resources, springs, seeps, wetlands, and other unique areas; and 

• Impacts on wildlife habitat. 

Common Associated Practices 

NRCS Conservation Practice Standard (CPS) Tree/Shrub Site Preparation (Code 490) commonly

precedes NRCS CPS Tree/Shrub Establishment (Code 612); and is applied with other conservation

practices such as NRCS CPSs Woody Residue Treatment (Code 384), Upland Wildlife Habitat

Management (Code 645), and Windbreak/Shelterbelt Establishment (Code 380). 

For further information, contact your local NRCS field office.