alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EUR-Lex - 32003R1561 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32003R1561

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 1561/2003 of 4 September 2003 derogating from Regulation (EC) No 708/98 on the taking over of paddy rice by the intervention agencies and fixing the corrective amounts and the price increases and reductions to be applied as regards the time limit for delivery into intervention for the 2002/2003 marketing year **

*
Official Journal L 222 , 05/09/2003 P. 0024 - 0024 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1561/2003

of 4 September 2003

derogating from Regulation (EC) No 708/98 on the taking over of paddy rice by the intervention agencies and fixing the corrective amounts and the price increases and reductions to be applied as regards the time limit for delivery into intervention for the 2002/2003 marketing year

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 of 22 December 1995 on the common organisation of the market in rice(1), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 411/2002(2), and in particular Article 8(b) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) The conditions governing the taking over of paddy rice by the intervention agencies are laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 708/98(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 610/2001(4). Article 6(1) of that Regulation stipulates that delivery must take place by the end of the second month following receipt of the offer and in any case not later than 31 August of the current marketing year.

(2) As a result of the exceptionally large quantities of paddy rice currently offered for buying in, it is difficult for the intervention agencies to meet the time limit for the delivery of the products. Consequently, Commission Regulation (EC) No 1045/2003(5) provides for a derogation from the delivery deadline at the end of the second month. In addition, because of the technical difficulties caused by the recent heatwave conditions, there should also be a derogation, for the current 2002/2003 marketing year, from the time limit requiring delivery by 31 August.

(3) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Notwithstanding Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 708/98, the delivery of paddy rice for taking over by the intervention agency in respect of the 2002/2003 marketing year must take place no later than 30 September 2003.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 4 September 2003.

For the Commission

Franz Fischler

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 329, 30.12.1995, p. 18.

(2) OJ L 62, 5.3.2002, p. 27.

(3) OJ L 98, 31.3.1998, p. 21.

(4) OJ L 90, 30.3.2001, p. 17.

(5) OJ L 151, 19.6.2003, p. 34.
| 1.     | Such Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2012, 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the Year ended December 31, 2012, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of JBI Inc. |

| Date: April 30, 2013 | By:    | /s/ Matthew Ingham  |   |
|----------------------|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|                 |   | Matthew Ingham           |   |
|                 |   | Chief Financial Officer  |   |
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2016-5019 Directorate ID: 2015-SW-079-AD

Helicopter Model: 

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 24 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: The actions of this AD are intended to prevent the failure of a sliding door to jettison, 

which could prevent occupants from exiting the helicopter during an emergency.

Costs:

We estimate that visually inspecting the sliding doors for corrosion would require 1 work-hour 

and no parts for a total cost of $85 per helicopter, and $2,040 for the U.S. fleet. Replacing 

corroded parts would require 8 work-hours and parts would cost $500 for a total cost of $1,180 

per helicopter. Replacing the door jettisoning system would require 16 work-hours and parts 

would cost $4,500 for a total cost of $5,860 per helicopter. 

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: David Hatfield
#### Joseph A. BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles RATLEDGE, Warden, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-7387

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: January 18, 2018

Decided: January 23, 2018

Joseph A. Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph W.H. Mott, OFFICE OF THE UNITED ' STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. .

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

*216Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Joseph A. Brown appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his complaint filed pursuant to *Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,*403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Brown v. Ratledge,*No. 7:16-cv-00303-EKD-RSB, 2017 WL 4404248 (W.D. Va. Sept. 29, 2017). 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*
#### Olandio Ray WORKMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. METRO PCS MOBILE PHONE COMPANY; Mr. Richardson; Metro PCS; Metro PCS Mobile, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-6952

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 21, 2017

Decided: December 27, 2017

Olandio Ray Workman, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Olandio Ray Workman seeks to appeal from the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint against Metro PCS Mobile Phone Company and Mr. Richardson, the registered agent for Metro PCS. We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory and remand for further proceedings.

This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C, § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 545-47, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The district court dismissed the complaint against the Defendants on the ground that they were not acting under color of state law. Because Workman may be able to remedy the deficiencies by filing an amended complaint, we conclude that the order Workman seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. *See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc.,*807 F.3d 619, 623-24 (4th Cir. 2015); *Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392,*10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand the case to the district court with instructions to allow Workman to amend his complaint. *Goode,*807 F.3d at 630. 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 AND REMANDED*
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

 

**Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)**

 

Theundersigned executive officer of First Federal Bancshares of Arkansas, Inc.(the “Registrant”) hereby certifies that the Registrant’s Form 10-Q forthe three months and six months ended June 30, 2005 fully complieswith the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and that the information contained therein fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

 

 
|   | /s/Larry J. Brandt                |   |
|--------|-----------------------------------|--------|
|   | Larry J. Brandt                   |   |
|   | President/Chief Executive Officer |   |

 

Date:  July 28, 2005

 

----
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Michael Yom, President and Chief Executive Officer of Biofield Corp. and I, Joseph Repko, Chief Financial Officer of Biofield Corp. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)

the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

(2)

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



|Date:  March 6, 2007 | By: | /s/ Michael Yom                      
|-------------------- | --- | -------------------------------------
|                     |     | Michael Yom                          
|                     |     | (President & Chief Executive Officer)



|Date:  March 6, 2007 | By: | /s/ Joseph Repko         
|-------------------- | --- | -------------------------
|                     |     | Joseph Repko             
|                     |     | (Chief Financial Officer)
#### Ronald MCCLARY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nurse DESANIS, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-7150

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: January 24, 2018

Decided: January 29, 2018

Ronald McClary, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Houston Foppiano, Gary Adam Moyers, BATTEN LEE, PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ronald McClary appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *McClary v. DeSanis,*No. 5:15-ct-03230-D (E.D.N.C. Aug. 21, 2017). 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*
(a)  A review of Toyota Motor Credit Corporation’s activities and of its performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of October 15, 2014 (the “Sale and Servicing Agreement”), among Toyota Auto Finance Receivables LLC, as seller, Toyota Motor Credit Corporation, as servicer (in such capacity, the “Servicer”) and sponsor, and Toyota Auto Receivables 2014-C Owner Trust, as issuer, during the year ended December 31, 2016 has been made under my supervision.
 
 (b)  To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the aforementioned period.
 
  
 By: /s/ Wei Shi
Exhibit 31.4

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 USC, SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT
OF 2002





I, Nancy Huber, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 2 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Medicine Man 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;
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: June 16, 2020



| | /s/ Nancy Huber                                             
| | ------------------------------------------------------------
| | Name: Nancy Huber                                           
| | Title: Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION



I, Andrew Gordon, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2008 of Coffee Holding Co., 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 company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.

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

(a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the companys disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the quarterly report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the issuers internal control over financial reporting; and

5.

I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the companys auditors and the audit committee of the companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the companys internal control over financial reporting.

Date:  June 13, 2008



| |                                                                             
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | /s/ Andrew Gordon                                                           
| | Andrew Gordon                                                               
| | President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer              
| | (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial and
Accounting Officer)
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Chapelle Alphonso BOULDIN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6983

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: January 30, 2018

Decided: February 1, 2018

Chapelle Alphonso Bouldin, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Matthew Hurt, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Chapelle Alphonso Bouldin appeals the district court’s July 11, 2017, order dismissing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as an unauthorized, second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. *See*4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Bouldin’s informal brief does not challenge the district court’s conclusion that his motion was an unauthorized, successive § 2255 motion, Bouldin has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. *See Williams v. Giant Food Inc.,*370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.* We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials be*129fore this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*

*

 To the extent that Bouldin’s notice of appeal might support review of the district court’s underlying opinion and order denying his § 2255 motion, his appeal from the opinion and order is untimely. The district court entered its opinion and order denying Bouldin’s § 2255 motion on October 20, 2016. Because the district court’s opinion and order was unaccompanied by a separate document, judgment is considered entered on March 20, 2017. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(7)(A)(ii), 26(a)(1)(C). Bouldin then had 60 days, or until May 19, 2017, to file his notice of appeal from the opinion and order. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), Bouldin did not file his notice of appeal from the district court’s order dismissing his most recent Rule 60(b) motion until July 25, 2017. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); *Houston v. Lack,*487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988). Furthermore, we note that Bouldin’s Rule 60(b) motions did not toll the appeal period because they were filed more than 28 days after the entry of judgment. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(vi). Consequently, we lack jurisdiction to consider the district court’s opinion and order denying Bouldin's § 2255 motion. *See Bowles*v. *Russell,*551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).
EXHIBIT 31.1

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Jay Elliot, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Powerhouse
Technologies Group, 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 small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer'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)) for the small business issuer and
have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the small business issuer, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

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

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

Date: February 18, 2005

BY: /s/ Jay Elliot
   -----------------------
Jay Elliot
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0500

CITY OF WHITEFISH,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

JOSHUA ZUMWALT,

Defendant and Appellant. 

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including May 11, 2022, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 4 2022

04/04/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0500