alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Press Release No. 13/2009

Press Relations Officer: Martin Ittershagen 

PR­staff: Anke Döpke, Dieter Leutert,

Fotini Mavromati, Theresa Pfeifer, Martin Stallmann

Address: Postfach 1406, 06813 Dessau­Roßlau

Telephone: +49 340/21 03­2122, ­2827, ­2250, ­2318, ­3927, ­2507

E­Mail: pressestelle@uba.de

Internet: www.umweltbundesamt.de

 

1

More environmentally friendly mobile air 

conditioning systems needed now

UBA’s President Troge appeals to automotive 

industry to go into production of greener cars

At this year’s 79th International Motor Show in Geneva, which runs from 5­15 March, a myriad 

of Minis, hybrid and electric cars are pointing towards tomorrow’s trend: fewer emissions and 

low fuel consumption. It seems the automotive industry has responded to customer demands. 

Yet a customer’s search for a passenger vehicle fitted with a green air­ conditioning system 

will be in vain. All the same, some three million tonnes of greenhouse gases per year are 

emitted from passenger vehicle air­conditioning units in Germany. 

“The industry must move full steam ahead to mass­produce CO2 air­conditioning systems as 

they are an outstanding example of innovation in environmental protection“, said Prof. Dr. 

Andreas Troge, President of the Federal Environment Agency (UBA). “A delay in the start of 

production amounts to a loss of expertise and market opportunities. This will weaken the 

international position of the European automotive industry and its components suppliers“, 

declared Troge.

In less than two years’ time, starting January 2011, all new vehicle types in Europe must run 

with refrigerants that have a much lower global warming potential than the refrigerants 

currently used. Automobile manufacturers are investigating two alternatives: the natural 

refrigerant CO2 (carbon dioxide) and the synthetic refrigerant R1234yf. Whereas the latter can 

develop highly corrosive and toxic hydrofluoric acid in a fire, CO2 is incombustible and nontoxic. What is more, R1234yf has a global warming potential that is four times higher than CO2.

In Autumn 2007 the German Association of the Automotive Industry (VDA) announced that the 

German automotive industry would introduce CO2 as its new refrigerant. The Association reasserted this claim in Autumn 2008.

“It is a wise decision, which must now be followed up by action. The technology for CO2 airconditioning systems has been developed, owing largely to a supplying industry dominated by 

mid­sized companies. The Federal Environment Agency already owns a vehicle fitted with a CO2

air­conditioning system“, said Troge.

CO2 is the refrigerant for the vehicles of the future: not only do CO2 air­conditioning systems 

provide cooling, they can also serve—unlike other alternatives­ as efficient heat pumps in the 
2

cold season. This applies to hybrid or electric cars in particular as they require auxiliary 

heating in winter.

More information on automobile air­conditioning systems is on the Internet at 

http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/klimaschutz­e/index.htm as part of the article "Climatefriendly alternative: Mobile air conditioning units with CO2.

Dessau­Roßlau, 5 March 2009
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    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  Annual  Report  of Forsyth Bancshares, Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with
the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Timothy  M.  Perry,  President  &  Principal  Executive  Officer of the Company,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as enacted pursuant to Section 906
of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002,  that:

(1)  The  Company's  Annual  Report on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December
     31,  2003  (the "Periodic Report"), to which this Certification is attached
     as  Exhibit  32.1, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
     15(d)  of  the  Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934,  as  amended;  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.

/s/  Timothy M. Perry
------------------------------

Timothy M. Perry
President & Principal Executive Officer
March 30, 2004



<PAGE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6810

KENNETH WAYNE WATFORD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. 

(8:15-cv-03756-PJM)

Submitted: November 17, 2016 Decided: November 22, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth Wayne Watford, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Wayne Watford appeals the district court’s order

denying his motion for the return of property. We have reviewed 

the record and find no reversible error. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 

41(g). Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
NOV 28 2016
#### Schnur vs. Schnur and another. Appeal of Hickcox.

*Clerk of Court. Order on former cleric to pay over money.*

1. Money was paid into court by a defendant to keep good an alleged tender, and judgment was ordered for plaintiff on the ground that no sufficient tender had been made; but such judgment was never entered, because the controversy was settled by the parties. On motion of said defendant (with due notice to all parties), and on proof that he was entitled to such moneys as against the plaintiff, the court made an order requiring its former clerk, by whom such money had been received, and not paid over to his successor, to pay the same to the moving party. *Held,*no error. *Sclmur v. Hickcox,*45 Wis., 200.-

2. Whether the court can enforce its order by attaching its former clerk, not considered.

APPEAL from the County Court of *Milwaukee*County.

*633A sum of money was paid into court iu this action by the defendant *Adam Schnur,*the respondent in this appeal, to keep good a tender thereof alleged to have been made by him to the plaintiff in satisfaction of the contract in suit. The money was paid to *James Hickcox,*who was then clerk of the circuit court for Milwaukee county, in which the action was pending.

The cause was tried, and the trial resulted in a finding that no sufficient tender had been made. Judgment for the plaintiff was ordered, but never entered, the controversy having been settled by the parties.

On due notice to all parties interested, the respondent moved the circuit court for an order requiring *Mr. Hickcox*to pay over the money to him, and showed that he Í6 entitled to the money, and that the same is in the hands of *Mr. Hickcox.*The court so ordered, and *Hickcox*appealed from the order.

The cause was submitted on the brief of *J. V. V. Platto*for the appellant, and that of *Murphey <& Goodwin*for the respondent.

LyoN, J.

*Schnur v. Hickcox,*45 Wis., 200, was an action on the ofiicial bond of the appellant, as clerk of the circuit court, to recover the money mentioned in the order from which this appeal was taken. The money having been paid into court ■por the plaintiff, it was held, in substance, that there could be no recovery in that action until the court should, upon proper proceedings, adjudicate that it belonged to the respondent, *Adam Schnur,*instead of the plaintiff. We also indicated the proper practice to obtain an adjudication in that behalf, and the practice thus indicated has been' strictly pursued by the respondent. Moreover, the motion papers show that he is entitled to the money, and that it is in the hands of the appellant. Under these circumstances no good reason is perceived for disturbing the order. Whether the court has authority to attach the appellant for nonpayment *634of the money, is a question which was not then and is not now "before us, and we intimate no opinion upon iti '

*By the Court.*— Order affirmed.
DuPont Chemicals and Fluoroproducts 

Chambers Works 

Deepwater, NJ 08023 

February 28,2013 7Z> 

Director, Chemical Control Division 

US Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics 

EPA East ^ 

Room 4146 

1201 Constitution Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20004 

Re: EPA - HQ - OPPT - 2003 - 0012 

DuPont Chambers Works NJPDES Permit No. NJ0005100 

PFOA Data-Submittal - Outfall DSN662 Weekly Grab Samples 

January 2013 Sample Data 

Dear Chemical Control Division: 

Attached please find a summary of PFOA analytical results for the DuPont Chambers Works 

weekly grab samples taken at internal outfall DSN662A in January 2013. In accordance with the 

current site NJPDES permit (NJ0005100, effective September 2011), these results are provided 

to NJDEP on a monthly basis via electronic discharge monitoring reports. The enclosures 

include two paper and two electronic copies of the analytical results from this monitoring period. 

Jacques Monteux 

Unit Manager-Site Manufacturing Systems 

DuPont Chambers Works 

JM7clc 

Enclosures 

CONTAINS NO CE
# C_2015154EN.01000102.xml

| 9.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 154/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 154/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7577 — Fairfax Financial Holdings/Brit)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 154/02)

On 4 May 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in the English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7577. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7577. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
SCAD-16-0000218

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL,

Petitioner,

vs.

ANTHONY P. LOCRICCHIO,

Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

(ODC CASE NOS. 13-066-9136 and 14-040-9183)

ORDER

(By: Wilson, J.)

Upon review of the November 25, 2016 motion for

extension of time for effective date of disbarment,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is granted. 

Respondent Locricchio’s disbarment shall take effect December 26,

2016.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, November 25, 2016.

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

Associate Justice

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCAD-16-0000218

25-NOV-2016

03:37 PM
# C_2015437EN.01000101.xml

| 29.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 437/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 437/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7795 — Ratos/Varma/Real Estate JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 437/01)

On 18 December 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7795. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7795. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
```

[Federal Register: April 16, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 73)]
[Notices]               
[Page 20031]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr16ap10-145]                         

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 6954]

 
Notice of Public Meeting on FY 2011 Refugee Admissions Program

    There will be a meeting on the President's FY 2011 Refugee 
Admissions Program on Tuesday, May 4, 2010 from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. The 
meeting will be held at the Refugee Processing Center, 1401 Wilson 
Boulevard, Suite 700, Arlington, Virginia. The meeting's purpose is to 
hear the views of attendees on the appropriate size and scope of the FY 
2011 Refugee Admissions Program.
    Persons wishing to attend this meeting must notify the Bureau of 
Population, Refugees, and Migration at telephone (202) 663-1006 by 5 
p.m. on Thursday, April 29, 2010, to reserve a seat. Persons wishing to 
present written comments should submit them by 5 p.m. on Thursday, 
April 29, 2010 via e-mail spruellda@state.gov or fax (202) 663-1364.
    If you have questions about the public meeting, please contact 
Delicia Spruell, PRM/Admissions Program Officer at (202) 663-1006. 
Information about the Refugee Admissions Program may be found at http://www.state.gov/g/prm/.

    Dated: April 12, 2010.
David Robinson,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and 
Migration, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2010-8785 Filed 4-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-33-P
```
| 1. | I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Insituform Technologies, Inc.; |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 3. | Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 4. | The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 5. | The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                      |   |                                  |
|---------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|                      |   |                                  |   |
| Date:  July 30, 2009 |   | /s/ J. Joseph Burgess            |   |
|                      |   | J. Joseph Burgess                     |   |
|                      |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |   |
|                      |   | (Principal Executive Officer)    |   |
#### Beach vs. Beckwith.

Where the parties to an action in a circuit court stipulate that it may be tried before the judge at chambers, and the finding be filed and judgment entered with the same effect as though the trial were had before the court without a jury, a judgment entered in pursuance of such stipulation must be regarded as though actually entered upon a trial before the court.

APPEAL from tbe Circuit Court for *Waupacca*County.

Action to recover for work done.

Tbe case is stated sufficiently in tbe opinion of tbe court.

*Wheeler &*Kimball, for appellant.

*W. O.*and *H. Q-.*Webb, for respondent.

November 19.

*By the*Court,

Paihe, J.

Tbis case was tried before tbe judge at chambers by a stipulation that it might be so tried, and tbe finding filed, judgment entered and exceptions taken in tbe same manner and with tbe same effect as though tbe trial bad been before tbe court without a jury. Tbe question is now raised in tbe appellant’s brief, whether tbis practice can be sustained, though no motion has been, made or exception taken which presents it directly to tbe court. Still, perhaps if tbe objection is good, it goes to tbe jurisdiction of tbis court, as involving tbe question whether there is really any judgment from which tbe appeal could be taken. And if we should be of tbe opinion that there was not, it might be our duty to dismiss tbe appeal. But we aré satisfied that tbe objection is not valid, but that a judgment entered in pursuance of such a stipulation, by parties to a suit actually pending in court, is to be regarded as though it had been actually entered on a trial before the court. The objection coming from one of the parties to such a stipulation, is certainly entitled to no favor. And nothing less than the absolute invalidity of the proceeding should furnish it any sanction. But there seems to be no valid reason why such a practice should not be pursued. It is not an attempt to confer jurisdiction by consent, upon a tribunal that has it not, but is simply the regulation of the mode of trial, by the parties, for their own convenience, and of the manner of enter*22ing tbe judgment in a court wbicb bas jurisdiction both of the parties and tbe subject matter. See *WalJcer ads. Bogan,*1 "Wis., 623, *et seq.,*as to the effect of such a stipulation.

The only remaining questions are merely of fact, dejcend-ing on the weight of the evidence. We do not deem it necessary to comment on it in detail, and shall do no more than to say that, in our opinion, the weight of evidence is decidedly in favor of the finding of the judge'below.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6877

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JAMIE EARL SMITH,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III,

Chief District Judge. (5:10-cr-00211-D-1)

Submitted: November 22, 2016 Decided: November 28, 2016

Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stephen Clayton Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, 

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Leslie Katherine 

Cooley, Assistant United States Attorney, Dena Janae King, 

Denise Walker, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, 

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jamie Earl Smith appeals the district court’s order denying 

his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence 

reduction. While Smith’s appeal was pending, he completed his 

term of imprisonment and was released from prison. “Given 

[appellant’s] release from prison, there is no wrong to remedy 

and an appeal should be dismissed when, by virtue of an 

intervening event, a court of appeals cannot grant any effectual 

relief whatever in favor of the appellant.” United States v. 

Hardy, 545 F.3d 280, 285 (4th Cir. 2008) (alteration and 

internal quotation marks omitted); United States v. Booker, 645 

F.3d 328 (5th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (explaining that “[a]ny 

termination of supervised release must be sought by a motion 

under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1)”). Accordingly, we dismiss this 

appeal as moot. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED