alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
'I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY MONITOR NETWORK REPORT Jul. 11, 2007 Site ID: TT-614-7001 StreetAddress: 35 PIMA STREET, SACATON

Tribe: Gila River IndianCommunity of Gila River Indian Reservation, AZ Region: SAN FRANCISCO UrbanizedArea: NOT IN AN URBAN AREA Poll: 44201 Ozone ProbeHt. (m): 15.0 Meas Scale: NEIGHBORHOOD POC: 1

~ . ~ --- 

### ~- Road Description Monitor Types Crit. Street Tr;:ic Action I 

# 1 Num Monitor Type Taken Action Reason

. _- 

# i POPULATION EXPOSURE 20020701 S TRIBAL MONITORS

Page 2 of 4
# C_2015016EN.01003502.xml

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Orange v Commission

(Case T-402/13) (1)

(Competition - Administrative procedure - Decision ordering an inspection - Proportionality - Appropriateness - Nececssity - Absence of arbitrariness - Statement of reasons)

(2015/C 016/56)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Orange (Paris, France) (represented by: J.-P. Gunther and A. Giraud)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Dawes and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission decisions C (2013) 4103 final and C (2013) 4194 final of 25 and 27 June 2013, relating to a procedure under Article 20(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 addressed respectively to France Telecom SA and Orange and to all companies directly or indirectly controlled by them.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Orange to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Orange to bear the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 313, 26.10.2013.

---
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 20635 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

GERBER RENE SALVADOR ESPINAL, also known as Gerber Rene Salvador, also known as Gerber Salvador Espinal, also known as Jose Antonio Benitez, also known as Gerber Salvador

,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:14

- CR

- 189

- 1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and HIGGINSON , Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Gerber Rene
Salvador Espinal has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in

accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States

v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Salvador Espinal h a s not filed a
response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief a nd the relevant portions of the

* 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
October 2 2 , 2015

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-20635 Document: 00513242884 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/22/2015No. 14

- 20635

2 record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal
presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s
motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from fur ther
responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 14-20635 Document: 00513242884 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/22/2015
# C_2016027EN.01007901.xml

| 25.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 27/79 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/79

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 3 December 2015 — Macchia v Commission

(Case F-37/13) (1)

1

(2016/C 027/102)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 207, 20/7/2013, p. 59.

1

---
# /00

Dear Participant: This e-mailis to provide further information concerning the public workshop that the Department ofEnergywill be holding onJuly 11, 2000, in Washington, DC on its notice of document availability regarding energyefficiency for commercialHVAC and water heating products. The workshop will start at 9:00 am and end at 5:00pm. It will be held in Room lE245 oftheForrestal Building at 1000 Independence Ave, SW, Washington, DC 20585. The agenda is attached. We request each participant who requested to speak at the workshop to make a 4-minute opening statement. The opening statement should be limited to general comments and identification ofkeyissues relevant to this notice. At the conclusion ofthe opening statements we will have a facilitated discussion ofthe issues raised in comments on the screening analysis and DOE's inclinations based on these analysis discussed in the Federal Register notice. Participants will have an opportunity to speak on each issue and should be prepared to answer questions by DOE staffand by otherparticipants concerning these issues. At the end ofthe discussions, we will provide 

### all participants the opportunity to make general closing statements.

Cyrus Nasseri, CommercialEquipment Program Manager Office ofBuilding Research and Standards
No. 10-5573.

#### Bradley Charles Price, Petitioner v. Mark Nooth, Superintendent, Snake River Correctional Institution.

562 U.S. 929, 131 S. Ct. 320,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7455.

178 L. Ed. 2d 209,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 31.3I, Kerril Steele, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Harrington West FinancialGroup, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial 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 misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in ExchangeAct Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the registrant and have: (d) Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly duringthe period in which this report is being prepared;  (e) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based onsuch evaluation; and  (f) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent function): (a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role inthe registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.Date: November 9, 2007              /s/ KERRIL STEELE   Kerril Steele   Sr. Vice-President, Chief Financial Officer(Principle Financial and Accounting Officer)
NO. 07-07-0132-CR

NO. 07-07-0133-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL D

APRIL 24, 2007

______________________________

EDWIN ROJAS, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 213TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY;

NOS. 0942114D & 0942115D; HONORABLE ROBERT K. GILL, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before this Court is Edwin Rojas’s pro se Motion to Withdraw Appeal in

which he expresses he no longer wishes to pursue these appeals. As required by Rule

42.2(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the motion is signed by Appellant. No

decision of this Court having been delivered to date, the motion is granted and the appeals
2

are dismissed. No motions for rehearing will be entertained and our mandates will issue

forthwith.

Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.

Patrick A. Pirtle

 Justice

Do not publish.
#### In the Matter of Leonid V. Duzhansky, Also Known as Leonid Duzhansky, Deceased. Eleanor Gutt, Respondent; Regina Duzhanskja, Appellant.

[57 NYS3d 905]

In a contested probate proceeding, the objectant Regina Duzhanskja appeals from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County (Lopez Torres, S.), dated August 2, 2016, as denied that branch of her motion which was to expand discovery beyond the time period set forth in 22 NYCRR 207.27 with respect to certain medical records of the decedent.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The applicable Uniform Rules for the Surrogate’s Court confines discovery to “a three-year period prior to the date of the propounded instrument and two years thereafter, or to the date of [the] decedent’s death, whichever is the shorter period,” except upon “the showing of special circumstances” (22 NYCRR 207.27). The determination of whether to expand the time period set forth in that rule is within the discretion of the court *(see Matter of Constant,*128 AD3d 419 [2015]).

Here, contrary to the objectant’s contention, the Surrogate’s Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of her motion which was to expand discovery beyond the time period set forth in 22 NYCRR 207.27 with respect to certain medical records of the decedent. The objectant failed to demonstrate that there were special circumstances warranting expansion of the time period set forth in that rule *(see Matter of Wilson,*266 AD2d 164 [1999]).

Rivera, J.R, Leventhal, Austin and Christopher, JJ., concur.
No. 10-6838.

#### Athens Jerome Lawson, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1035, 131 S. Ct. 580,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8790.

178 L. Ed. 2d 424,

November 8, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
# C_2015046EN.01004802.xml

| 9.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 46/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 46/48

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2014 — Comptoir d'Épicure v OHIM — A-Rosa Akademie (da rosa)

(Case T-405/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for international registration designating the European Community - Figurative mark da rosa - Earlier Community word mark aROSA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 and Rule 22 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95))

(2015/C 046/60)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Le Comptoir d'Épicure (Paris, France) (represented by: S. Arnaud, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: V. Melgar, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: A-Rosa Akademie GmbH (Rostock, Germany) (represented by: A. Theis, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 May 2013 (Case R 1195/2012-5), concerning opposition proceedings between A-Rosa Akademie Gmbh and Le Comptoir d’Épicure.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the action;

| 2) | Orders Le Comptoir d’Épicure to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders Le Comptoir d’Épicure to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 284, 28.9.2013.

1

---
EXHIBIT 99

                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 Praxis  Pharmaceuticals  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending February 28, 2003, as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
David  Stadnyk,  Chief  Executive  Officer  and 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 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/ DAVID STADNYK
----------------------------------------
David Stadnyk
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1



Section 1350 Certification,

As Adopted Pursuant To

Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Magma Design Automation, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending July 3, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Rajeev Madhavan, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to the best
of my knowledge, 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) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



(2) The information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company for the periods presented therein.



/s/    RAJEEV MADHAVANRajeev Madhavan Chief Executive Officer




August 11, 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.
# C_2013325EN.01005202.xml

| 9.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 325/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 325/52

---

Action brought on 9 September 2013 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-84/13)

2013/C 325/85

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision to calculate accredited pension rights acquired before entry into service on the basis of the new General Implementing Provisions and relating to the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights under the European Union pension scheme applying the new General Implementing Provisions for Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare Article 9 of the General Implementing Provisions for Article 11(2) of Annex VIII of the Staff Regulations unlawful and therefore inapplicable; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare Article 9 of the General Implementing Provisions for Article 11(2) of Annex VIII of the Staff Regulations unlawful and therefore inapplicable;

| — | annul the decision of 26 November 2012 — and that of 27 June 2013 confirming it — concerning the calculation of accredited pension rights acquired by the applicant before his entry into service, in the context of the transfer of those pension rights in the pension scheme of the institutions of the European Union, pursuant to the general implementing provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII of the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 26 November 2012 — and that of 27 June 2013 confirming it — concerning the calculation of accredited pension rights acquired by the applicant before his entry into service, in the context of the transfer of those pension rights in the pension scheme of the institutions of the European Union, pursuant to the general implementing provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII of the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
**Exhibit 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, David M. Noel, certify that:
I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Lifecore Biomedical,Inc.;
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:
     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, includingits consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;
     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions aboutthe effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
     (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in thecase of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and
The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
     (d) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and
     (e) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.     Date: September 13, 2004 By /s/ DAVID M. NOEL    David M. Noel *Vice President of Finance and ChiefFinancial Officer* *(principal financial and accounting officer)*
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Argued February 14, 2008

Decided May 6, 2008

Before

DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

No. 06-3940

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

SCOTT FOOR,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Indiana, 

Indianapolis Division

No. IP06-CR-0041-01

John Daniel Tinder, Judge

O R D E R

Scott Foor pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court

sentenced Foor to 110 months in custody, three years of supervised release, a $500 fine and a

$100 special assessment. Foor’s only claim in this appeal is that the district court judge erred in

failing to establish a specific schedule for making fine payments during Foor’s term of

imprisonment. Due to the limited nature of his appeal, we need not recite the details of his crime

and plea agreement other than to note that by the terms of his plea agreement Foor may

challenge this portion of his sentence. 

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 06-3940 2

Foor did not specifically object to the district court’s fine order at sentencing, so we

review the district court’s actions for plain error only. U.S. v. Kelly, 519 F.3d 355, 362, n.1 (7th

Cir. 2008). That is, in order to reverse the order of the district court, there must have been (1) an

error, (2) it must have been plain and (3) it must have affected Foor’s substantial rights. U.S. v.

Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993). 

The issue raised in this case can be resolved completely by reference to our recently

released opinion in U.S. v. Ellis, No. 05-4677, 2008 WL 879861 (7th Cir. Apr. 3, 2008). Ellis

instructs that where a court has ordered a fine payment due immediately, it is not error for the

district court to fail to set a schedule for making fine payments while a defendant is incarcerated. 

Id. at *3. Nor must a court set a schedule of payments for any unpaid amount remaining during

the period of supervised release. Id.

The district court’s order in this matter is AFFIRMED.