alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 4 (Thursday, January 7, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 983]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X10-150107]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Notice of Re-Establishment of the National Petroleum Council

AGENCY: Office of Fossil Energy, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of Re-Establishment of the National Petroleum Council.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 14(a)(2)(A) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, App., and section 102-3.65, Title 41, Code of Federal Regulations, 
and following consultation with the Committee Management Secretariat, 
General Services Administration, notice is hereby given that the 
National Petroleum Council has been re-established for a two-year 
period.
    The Council will continue to provide advice, information, and 
recommendations to the Secretary of Energy on matters relating to oil 
and natural gas, or the oil and natural gas industries. The Secretary 
of Energy has determined that renewal of the National Petroleum Council 
is essential to the conduct of the Department's business and in the 
public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed by 
law upon the Department of Energy. The Council will continue to operate 
in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Pub. L. 92-463), the General Services Administration Final Rule on 
Federal Advisory Committee Management, and other directives and 
instructions issued in implementation of those acts.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Rachel Samuel at (202) 586-3279.

    Issued at Washington, DC, on December 30, 2009.
Carol A. Matthews,
Acting Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010-10 Filed 1-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Michael Kravchenko, Chief Financial Officer of Star Energy Corporation (the Company), certifies, under the standards set forth and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                        |  |  |  |                              
|----------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------
|                        |  | 
|Date: November 19, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ Michael Kravchenko       
|                        |  |  |  | Michael Kravchenko           
|                        |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer      
|                        |  |  |  | (Principal Financial Officer)

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.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

RIVER MASCARI,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 State.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-16-00283-CR

Appeal from the

210th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 20130D00117)

O R D E R

The trial court judge has verbally informed the Clerk’s Office that Appellant does not

have a right to appeal. The trial court has not, however, entered a written certification of the 

Appellant’s right to appeal as required by the Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX.R.APP.P.

25.2(d), Appendix D. Accordingly, the trial court is ordered to enter the required certification 

and file it with the trial court clerk within thirty days of the date of this order. See Cortez v. 

State, 420 S.W.3d 803 806-07 (Tex.Crim.App. 2013). If the trial court is unable to obtain the 

defendant’s signature on the certification, the trial court should nevertheless certify whether 

Appellant has a right to appeal and file the certification without the Appellant’s signature. The 

trial court clerk shall provide a copy of the certification to this Court as soon as possible, but not 

later than three days after it is filed. See TEX.R.APP.P. 25.2(e). 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 7

th day of December, 2016.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez and Hughes, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2(1)

STATEMENT OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 1350

I, Shelly Schaffer, the chief financial officer of Support.com, Inc. (the Company), certify for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter
63 of title 18 of the United States Code that, to the best of my knowledge,



|(i) | the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                     |  |  |  |  |  |                              
|-------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | -----------------------------
|Date: August 6, 2010 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ SHELLY SCHAFFER          
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | Shelly Schaffer              
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer and  
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | Executive Vice President     
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | of Finance and Administration

A
signed original of this written statement required by 18 U.S.C. § 1350 has been provided to Support.com, Inc. and will be retained by Support.com, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



|(1) | The material contained in this Exhibit 32.2 is not deemed filed with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company
under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, whether made before or after the date hereof and irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing, except to the extent that the registrant
specifically incorporates it by reference.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# C_2015368EN.01000101.xml

| 6.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 368/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 368/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7706 — Kinnevik/Qliro Group)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 368/01)

On 29 October 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 32015M7706. 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 32015M7706. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

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

1

---
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED August 28, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-10407 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus OSCAR OMAR FUENTES, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 2:01-CR-49-1

-------------------- Before DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Oscar Omar Fuentes has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Fuentes has filed a response. This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction on its own motion if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby , 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). Article III, § 2, of the Constitution limits federal court jurisdiction to actual cases and controversies.No. 05-10407 -2- Spencer v. Kemna , 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998). The case-or-controversy requirement demands that “some concrete and continuing injury other than the now-ended incarceration or parole -- some ‘collateral consequence’ of the conviction -- must exist if the suit is to be maintained.” Id. Fuentes has served the sentence that was imposed upon the revocation of his supervised release. The order revoking Fuentes’s term of supervised release imposed no further term of supervised release. Accordingly, there is no case or controversy for this court to address, and the appeal is dismissed as moot. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is denied as unnecessary.
MOTION DENIED AS UNNECESSARY; APPEAL DISMISSED.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, December 05, 2016.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, December 05, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A17D0163. LAURA ORTEGA v. KABOBS, INC. et al..

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

2016CV033056
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SONIA PADILLA-CASTILLO,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 10-71243

Agency No. A099-579-899

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 13, 2012** 

Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges. 

Sonia Padilla-Castillo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

FILED

NOV 19 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-71243

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the

agency’s factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.

2006), and we deny the petition for review. 

Padilla-Castillo failed to raise any substantive challenge to the agency’s

determination that her asylum application was untimely. See Martinez-Serrano v.

INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and

argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Accordingly, we deny the petition

as to her asylum claim.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Padilla-Castillo

failed to establish past persecution because she did not demonstrate that she

suffered domestic abuse in Mexico, the country of removal. See 8 C.F.R.

§ 1208.16(b)(1); Gonzalez-Medina v. Holder, 641 F.3d 333, 338 (9th Cir. 2011)

(domestic abuse that occurred in the United States could not constitute past

persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that PadillaCastillo failed to establish it is more likely than not that she will face future

persecution in Mexico. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003)

(possibility of future persecution too speculative). Accordingly, her withholding of

removal claim fails.
3 10-71243

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief

because Padilla-Castillo failed to show it is more likely than not she will be

tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to

Mexico. See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 747-48 (9th Cir. 2008).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
#### Bressi v. London Assurance Corporation.

*Automobile policy*— Affidavit *of defence*— Denial *of averments of*damage— *Precision required.*

In an action for loss of an automobile, where plaintiff seeks to recover upon an accident insurance policy the sum of $1650, being the amount of the insurance, the automobile having' been stolen, a mere averment in the affidavit of defence that the automobile was not worth $400 is insufficient.

Rule for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defence. C. P. No. 2 Phila. Co., March T., 1922, No. 8535.

*David S. Malis,*for plaintiff; *Swartz & Campbell,*for defendant.

June 10, 1922.

Rogers, J.,

The plaintiff, Thomas E. Bressi, seeks to recover from the London Assurance Corporation, in an action of *assumpsit,*the sum of $1650, which is the amount of the insurance on a four-passenger automobile, known as a Haynes, under a policy dated May 9, 1921. The insurance was against loss by theft, and it appears from the pleadings that the automobile was stolen Feb. 4, 1922. Demand for payment, under the policy, was made, and is admitted by the defendant. The defendant has arbitrarily taken the position, notwithstanding the fact that the policy of insurance was for the sum of $1650, that at the time of the loss of plaintiff’s automobile, it was worth less than $400. This was without inspection.

In our opinion, there is no foundation in fact, under the contract of insurance, which gives the insurer in this case the right to arbitrarily fix the value of the stolen automobile. There is no evidence as to actual cash value at the time of the theft. We are also of opinion that we need not go further into the case at bar than to refer to the opinion of President Judge Martin, of Court of Common Pleas No. 5, reported in the Legal Intelligencer March 3, 1922 [1 D. & C. 181], in which there was a rule taken for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence, as in this case, and the rule was made absolute.

We concur in the opinion of Court of Common Pleas No. 5, the facts under the policy being alike, and, therefore, the rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence is made absolute.
Notes from conversation with Erika Guerra, Holcom 8/26/08 

- In a kiln in South Carolina, they burn body panel rejects from a Yamaha Wave 

Runner plant 

- Other kilns burn other mfg rejects, including lighting covers, wiring covers, fluffy 

material like diapers 

- In recent years, there has been a trend towards companies finding environmentally 

preferable waste solutions (e.g., combustion with energy recovery instead of 

landfill) 

- Holcom is paid to take these materials 

- Cement kilns tend to use less liquid fuels (e.g., sludges, antifreeze) in favor of 

solid materials 

- Holcom will not take hospital waste, asbestos, batteries, electronics, biohazards, 

explosives, cyanide, mineral acids, radioactive wastes, or unsorted MSW
#### Miller v. Keim.

*Practice, C. P.*— Affidavit *of defence*— Statutory *demurrer and averments of fact in same affidavit*— Waiver *of legal objections*— Act *of May 14, 1915.*

1. Under the Practice Act of May 14, 1915, P. L. 483, an affidavit of defence should not contain both a statutory demurrer and allegations of fact.

2. When an affidavit of defence raises questions of law as to the form of the statement and also answers allegations of fact of the plaintiff, the defendant must be deemed to have waived the legal objections raised, and the case is at issue.

Statutory demurrer. C. P. Bucks Co., Sept. T., 1920, No. 68.

*John L. DuBois,*for plaintiff; *Buckman & Buckman,*for defendant.

Dec. 13, 1921.

Ryan, P. J.,

While the affidavit of defence is entitled “Affidavit of defence raising questions of law,” and in its first paragraph enumerates a great many legal objections to the statement of claim, in its second and third paragraphs it answers allegations of fact contained in the statement. It also sets forth in four more paragraphs a set-off and counter-claim, to which the plaintiff has replied. Section 4 of the Practice Act of May 14, 1915, P. L. 483, abolishes demurrers and provides in their stead, in section 20, the affidavit of defence raising questions of law, as follows: “Section 20. The defendant in the affidavit of defence may raise any question of law without answering the averments of fact in the statement of claim; and any question of law so raised may be set down for hearing and disposed of by the court. If, in the opinion of the court, the decision of such question of law disposes of the whole or any part of the claim, the court may enter judgment for the defendant, or make such other order as may be just. If the court shall decide the question of law so raised against the defendant, he may file a supplemental affidavit of defence to the averments of fact of the statement within fifteen days.” The term “statutory demurrer” is generally accepted as a proper name for this pleading. It is clear that the act intends that it shall be a demurrer in fact, embracing only matters of law arising on the face of the statement of claim; hence the provision that “if the court shall decide the question of law as raised against the defendant, he may file a supplemental affidavit of defence to the averments of fact of the statement within fifteen days.” When the defendant in his affidavit of defence raises questions of law as well as fact, he departs from the practice outlined by the above section. When the questions of law raised relate, as here, to the form of the statement, and the defendant also answers the allegations of fact of the plaintiff, he must be deemed to have waived the legal objections raised. This case is at issue on the facts and will go' upon the list in regular order.

*From*Calvin S. Boyer, Doylestown, Pa.
# C_2016096EN.01000401.xml

| 11.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7841 — Avril Pôle Animal/Tönnies International Holding/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 96/02)

On 3 March 2016, 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 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 32016M7841. 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 32016M7841. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
02/24/201 2 09:4 3 FA X 3107256S1 6 AWP- 7 ©00 2

D.S
. Departmen t ofTransportatio n Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Western-Pacifi cRegio n Offic e o f Regiona l Counse l 

### iRAi^SPORTATIO M ^OCKETOPERATIOi^i S 

## mm

## - 8 p 

## 2

: lb P.O
. Bo x9200 7 Lo s Angeles , C A90009-200 7 (310)725-711 0 (310 ) 725-681 6 facsimil e



## ^\^(i^S'c^ids'b^^' i Februar y 24 , 201 2 VT AFACSIMIL Ean dU.S . MAI L .'•"edera l Aviatio nAdministratio n SC O Independenc e Avenue , S W Washington , D C 2059 1 Attn ; Stephani e McCiain , Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Buildin g - Suit e 2W100 0 l-acsimile : 202-493-514 2 Rfe : I nth e Matte r

o f Eric k Albert o Medina : Cas e No . 2011WP23004 4 Dea r Ms . McClain : { naccordanc e wit h§ 13.21 5 o f th e Rule s o f

Practic e i nFA ACivi l Penalt y Action s 0 4 C.F.R . 13.215) , th e undersigne dattorney , onbehal f o f th e Complamant , respectfull y withdraw s th e complain t

i nthi s matter . Sincerely , NAOM I TSUD A Regiona l Counse l

Lis aJ.^oscan o Attorne y cc : DOT , Offic e o f

Hearing s (Vi afacsimil e onl y t o 202-366-7536 )
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 ACRONGENOMICS INC.(the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Leftheris Georgakopoulos, President,, and Ron Lizée, Chief Financial Officer, 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 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date: November 12, 2004









By: /s/ Leftheris Georgakopoulos

Name: Leftheris Georgakopoulos

Title:    President







By: /s/ Ron Lizee

Name: Ron Lizée

Title:    Chief Financial Officer