alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2004168EN.01001401.xml

| 26.6.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/14

---

(2004/C 168/25)

Last publication of the Court of Justice in the
  Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

OJ C 156, 12.6.2004

OJ C 156, 12.6.2004

Past publications

OJ C 146, 29.5.2004

OJ C 106, 30.4.2004

OJ C 94, 17.4.2004

OJ C 85, 3.4.2004

OJ C 71, 20.3.2004

OJ C 59, 6.3.2004

These texts are available on:

| | EUR-Lex:http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex |
| --- | --- |

EUR-Lex:http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex

| | CELEX:http://europa.eu.int/celex |
| --- | --- |

CELEX:http://europa.eu.int/celex

---
# C_2004262EN.01002901.xml

| 23.10.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/29

---

Action brought on 16 June 2004 by Spyridon de Athanassios Pappas against the Committee of the Regions

(Case T-254/04)

(2004/C 262/56)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Committee of the Regions was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 16 June 2004 by Spyridon de Athanassios Pappas, residing in Kraainem (Belgium), represented by Xanthi Gousta, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the appointing authority of the Committee of the Regions of 9 March 2004 in response to his complaint of 23 December 2003; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the appointing authority of the Committee of the Regions of 9 March 2004 in response to his complaint of 23 December 2003;

| — | annul the decision of 8 October 2003 of the Bureau of the Committee of the Regions annulling recruitment procedure 2000/C 28 A/01; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 8 October 2003 of the Bureau of the Committee of the Regions annulling recruitment procedure 2000/C 28 A/01;

| — | order the Committee of the Regions to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Committee of the Regions to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant applied for the post of Secretary General of the Committee of the Regions and subsequently contested before the Court of First Instance (Case T-73/01) (1) the decision of the Committee to reject his application and appoint another candidate to that post. By judgment of 18 September 2003, (2) the Court of First Instance upheld his application. In the wake of that judgment, the Committee of the Regions, by decision of 8 October 2003, annulled the recruitment procedure at issue and opened a fresh recruitment procedure for the same post.

1

2

By this action, the applicant contests the latter decision and the decision rejecting the complaint he lodged about it. He submits that under Article 233 EC the defendant should have reopened the first recruitment procedure, by reconstructing his application file fully and accurately and then proceeding to consult the ad hoc selection committee. According to the applicant, it was only after those steps had been taken that the defendant could validly annul the first recruitment procedure.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 2.6.2001, p. 23.

1

(2)  OJ C 289, 29.11.2003, p. 20.

2

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6607 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ROBERT EARL WARREN, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Senior

District Judge. (1:01-cr-100; 1:04-cv-01144-WLO)

Submitted: July 25, 2006 Decided: August 3, 2006

Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Earl Warren, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Robert Earl Warren, Jr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s orders denying his motion to amend and accepting a

magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny relief on his 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2000) motion. The orders are not appealable unless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will

not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner

satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists

would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the

district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive

procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable.

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v.

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-

84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and

conclude that Warren has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to

proceed in formal pauperis, 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
<PAGE>



                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL 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 Childtime Learning Centers,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending July 19, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Periodic
Report"), I, Frank M. Jerneycic, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         1.       the Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly
                  presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
                  and results of operations of the Company.



Dated:  September 9, 2002                   /s/ Frank M. Jerneycic
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Frank M. Jerneycic
                                            Chief Financial Officer









                                      -21-
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7820

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

BUTTON JACK RHODES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CR-92-2, CA-95-1151-R)

Submitted: May 19, 1998 Decided: August 5, 1998

Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Button Jack Rhodes, Appellant Pro Se. Ruth Elizabeth Plagenhoef,

Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his

motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994) (current version at 28

U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998)). We have reviewed the

record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. Rhodes, Nos. CR-92-2; CA-95-1151-R (W.D.

Va. Oct. 29, 1996). See Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. ___, 1997 WL

338568 (U.S. June 23, 1997) (No. 96-6298). Appellant has filed an

application for a certificate of appealability and a motion to

supplement that application. Because Appellant’s § 2255 motion was

filed prior to implementation of the Antiterrorism and Effective

Death Penalty Act of 1996, a certificate of appealability is not

required. Therefore, we deny Appellant’s application for a certificate of appealability and the supplemental motion. 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.

AFFIRMED
# C_2004190EN.01001802.xml

| 24.7.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/18

---

Action brought on 10 May 2004 by Patricia Wauthier and Viviane Deveen against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-164/04)

(2004/C 190/30)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 10 May 2004 by Patricia Wauthier and Viviane Deveen, residing in Belgium, represented by G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | Annul the 2001-2002 appraisal exercise in relation to the applicants; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the 2001-2002 appraisal exercise in relation to the applicants;

| — | Alternatively, annul the applicants' career development reviews (REC/CDR) for the period 1.7.2001 – 31.12.2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Alternatively, annul the applicants' career development reviews (REC/CDR) for the period 1.7.2001 – 31.12.2002;

| — | Decide as to costs, expenses and fees and order the Commission of the European Communities to pay them. |
| --- | --- |

—

Decide as to costs, expenses and fees and order the Commission of the European Communities to pay them.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The pleas in law and main arguments relied upon by the applicants in this case are the same as those relied upon by the applicants in Cases T-43/04 and T-47/04.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2080 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2080

    To provide that the management plan entitled ``Eastern Interior 
   Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact 
               Statement'' shall have no force or effect.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 6, 2017

 Mr. Young of Alaska introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                 to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To provide that the management plan entitled ``Eastern Interior 
   Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact 
               Statement'' shall have no force or effect.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Eastern Interior Alaska Land Use 
Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. NULLIFICATION OF EFFECT OF MANAGEMENT PLAN.

    The management plan entitled ``Eastern Interior Proposed Resource 
Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement'', for which 
notice of availability was published in the Federal Register on July 
29, 2016 (81 Fed. Reg. 50009), shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 15.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-150656) pertaining to the 2001 Siemens Stock Option Plan, Siemens Stock Awards, Siemens Saving Plan and Siemens Savings Plan for Union Employees, in the RegistrationStatement (Form S-8 No. 333-155888) pertaining to the Siemens Group Share Matching Plan, in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-163522) pertaining to the Siemens Savings Plan and the Siemens Savings Plan for Union Employees and inthe Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-178544) pertaining to the Siemens Savings Plan and the Siemens Savings Plan for Union Employees of our reports dated November 21, 2012 with respect to the consolidated financial statements ofSiemens Aktiengesellschaft and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Siemens Aktiengesellschaft in this Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended September 30, 2012. 

/s/ Ernst & Young GmbH          

Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft 

Munich, Germany 

November 28, 2012
# C_2004262EN.01001101.xml

| 23.10.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/11

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 9 September 2004

in Case C-269/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel): Administration de l'enregistrement et des domains, État du grand-duché de Luxembourg v Vermietungsgesellschaft Objekt Kirchberg SARL (1)

1

(Sixth VAT Directive - Article 13(C) - Exemption of transactions of leasing or letting of immovable property - Right of option for taxation - Deduction of input tax - Obtaining prior approval of the tax authorities)

(2004/C 262/21)

Language of the case: French

In Case C-269/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Cour d'appel (Luxembourg), by decision of 18 June 2003, received on 20 June 2003, in the proceedings brought by Administration de l'enregistrement et des domains, État du grand-duché de Luxembourg v Vermietungsgesellschaft Objekt Kirchberg SARL — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A. Rosas and S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 9 September 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

The provisions of subparagraph (a) of the first paragraph and of the second paragraph of Article 13(C) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC 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 do not preclude a Member State, which has exercised the power to allow taxpayers a right of option for taxation on leasing or letting transactions of immovable property, from adopting legislation which makes full deduction of the input VAT paid conditional upon non-retroactive, prior approval of the tax authorities.

---

(1)  OJ C 200 of 23.8.2003.

1

---
<PAGE>

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

I, Gilbert Hu, 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
AltiGen Communications, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
December 31, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in
such Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition
and results of operations of AltiGen Communications, Inc.



                                          By: /s/ Gilbert Hu
                                              --------------
                                          Name: Gilbert Hu
                                          Title: Chief Executive Officer
**Conservation Practice Effects**

**Commonly Associated Practices:**Aquaculture Ponds, Critical Area Planting, Fence, Forage and Biomass Planting, Forest Stand Improvement, Fuel Break, Karst Sinkhole Treatment , Land Reclamation, Abandoned Mined Land, Land Reclamation, Currently Mined Land, Land Reclamation, Landslide Treatment, Multi-Story Cropping, Pond, Prescribed Grazing, Range Planting, Riparian Forest Buffer, Road/Trail/Landing Closure and Treatment, Silvopasture Establishment, Tree/Shrub Establishment, Vegetated Treatment Area , Waste Storage Facility, Waste Treatment Lagoon, Water Well, Water Well Decommissioning, Watering Facility, Wetland Restoration, Windbreak/Shelterbelt Establishment.

**Note:**This worksheet contains general talking points for the conservation planner to discuss with the land user.  It is the first step towards an economic or financial analysis.  The second step would include identifying a specific site for analysis at the farm or field level, editing the template for local conditions, adding units and quantities of farm inputs and outputs.  The third step in the economic analysis is to place a dollar value on as many variables as possible, put all units in the same time frame, using amortization ($/Acres/Year) or net present value ($/Acre), so benefits and costs can be compared.  The fourth and final step would be to combine several conservation practices into a conservation system, which is how most conservation practices are applied at the field level. Data for the worksheet comes from the land user, conservation planner, technical specialist and local agricultural supply vendors and contractors.  See Economics Technical Note: TN 200-ECN-1, Basic Economic Analysis Using T-Charts (August 2013) for more information.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDG MENT

No. 04

- 24

- 00489

- CV

Jose FLORES

, Appellant

v.

Sergio BERNAL

, Appellee

From the 406th Judicial District Court

, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021CVK001079D4 Honorable Oscar J. Hale, Jr.

, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARTINEZ

, JUSTICE VALENZUELA , AND JUSTICE

BRISSETTE

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. Costs of the appeal are assessed against appellant.

SIGNED August 28, 2024.

_________________________________ Lori I. Valenzuela , Justice
**Conservation Practice Effects**

**Commonly Associated Practices:**Brush Management, Channel Bed Stabilization, Clearing & Snagging, Constructed Wetland, Critical Area Planting, Dam, Dam, Diversion, Dike, Diversion, Fence, Fish Passage, Grade Stabilization Structure, Grassed Waterway, Irrigation Canal or Lateral, Irrigation Field Ditch, Irrigation Reservoir, Land Clearing, Lined Waterway or Outlet, Pumping Plant, Streambank and Shoreline Protection, Structure for Water Control, Surface Drainage, Field Ditch, Surface Drainage, Main or Lateral, Wetland Creation, Wetland Enhancement, Wetland Restoration, Wetland Wildlife Habitat Management.

**Note:**This worksheet contains general talking points for the conservation planner to discuss with the land user.  It is the first step towards an economic or financial analysis.  The second step would include identifying a specific site for analysis at the farm or field level, editing the template for local conditions, adding units and quantities of farm inputs and outputs.  The third step in the economic analysis is to place a dollar value on as many variables as possible, put all units in the same time frame, using amortization ($/Acres/Year) or net present value ($/Acre), so benefits and costs can be compared.  The fourth and final step would be to combine several conservation practices into a conservation system, which is how most conservation practices are applied at the field level. Data for the worksheet comes from the land user, conservation planner, technical specialist and local agricultural supply vendors and contractors.  See Economics Technical Note: TN 200-ECN-1, Basic Economic Analysis Using T-Charts (August 2013) for more information.
**Exhibit 23.3**

 

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTEREDPUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We have issued our report dated March 31, 2006 accompanying the 2005consolidated financial statements included in the Annual Report of ChannellCommercial Corporation on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,2007.  We hereby consent to theincorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statements ofChannell Commercial Corporation on Form S-8 (File No. 333-36097,filed September 22, 1997 and File No. 333-109771, filed October 17,2003).

 

 
| /s/  Grant Thornton LLP |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
|                    |
| Los Angeles, California |
| March 27, 2008     |

 

----
# Constructed Wetland (Ac.) (656) Conservation Practice Standard

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Resources 
-  Constructed Wetland (Ac.) (656) Conservation Practice Standard 

Download the national conservation practice standard document and supporting documents for Constructed Wetland (Ac.) (656).

## National Standard Document

NOTICE - National conservation practice standards should not be used to plan, design or install a conservation practice. To find these documents at the local level, visit our Field Office Technical Guide website.

Conservation Practice Name (Units) (Code) (Date Issued)

Constructed Wetland (Ac.) (656) (7/2022) Standard Document(123.25 KB)

###   Supporting Documents

Constructed Wetland (Ac.) (656) Overview(309.73 KB)

Constructed Wetland (Ac.) (656) CPPE(25.29 KB)

Constructed Wetland (Ac.) (656) Network Effects(68.81 KB)

##   Additional Information

### Conservation Practice Standards

On this page find links to national conservation practice standards and supporting documents.
Learn More

### Conservation Practice Standards Information

Learn about the information provided in conservation practice standards and supporting documents, such as overviews, worksheets, and network effects diagrams.
Learn More
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 Annual Report of LoyaltyPoint, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I Paul Robinson,
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 to my
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.


                                                         /s/  Paul Robinson
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Paul Robinson,
                                                         Chairman and
                                                         Chief Executive Officer


Date:  April 13, 2005

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