alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Slip Op. 09-57 UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE AD HOC UTILITIES GROUP,

Plaintiff,

v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, - and - USEC INCORPORATED, and UNITED STATES ENRICHMENT CORPORATION, Defendant-Intervenors. Before: Pogue, Judge Court No. 06-00300

ORDER [Defendant’s and Defendant-Intervenors’ motions to dismiss granted.] June 16, 2009 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP (Nancy A. Fischer, Joshua D. Fitzhugh, Christine J. Sohar, Kemba T. Eneas and Stephan E. Becker) for Plaintiff Ad Hoc Utilities Group. James M. Lyons, General Counsel, Neal J. Reynolds, Assistant General Counsel, Office of the General Council, U.S. International Trade Commission (Peter L. Sultan) for Defendant United States. Steptoe & Johnson LLP (Eric C. Emerson, Sheldon E. Hochberg, Richard O. Cunnin g h am, Thomas J. Trendl and Alexandra E.P. Baj) for Defendant-Intervenors USEC Inc. an d U nited States Enrichment Corp. Pogue, Judge: Plaintiff Ad Hoc Utilites Group ( “ A HUG”), a group of American utility companies that purchases and uses uranium , seeks review of the International Trade Commission’s(“ITC”) decision in Uranium From Russia, 71 Fed. Reg. 44,707 (ITC

Aug. 6, 2006) (concluding that termination of the suspended investigation on uranium from Russia would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States) and accompanying Uranium from Russia, USITC Pub. 3872, Inv. No. 731–TA–539–C (Aug. 2006). Defendant United States and Defendant-Intervenors move to dismiss, pursuant to USCIT Rule 12(b)(1), for lack of subject m a t ter jurisdiction, more specifically lack of statutory standing under 28 U.S.C. § 2631(c). The issues of law and fact before the court are no different than those presented in Ad Hoc Utilities Group v. United States, Cause No. 06-229 (“AHUG”) (AHUG’s challenge to Commerce’s final determina t i o n that termination of the suspended investigation on uranium from Russia would likel y result in continued dumping of enriched uranium). Parties i n A H U G and the case at bar are identical, and there is no significant argument raised by Plaintiff here that was not considered by the cou r t i n AHUG. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in AHUG, the court grants Defendant’s and Defendant-Intervenors’ motions to dismiss for lack of standing. Judgment will issue accordingly. It is SO ORDERED.

/s/ Donald C. Pogue Donald C. Pogue, Judge Dated: June 16, 2009

New York, New York
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS ADDED BY**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Fidelity D & D Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Salvatore R. DeFrancesco, Jr.,****Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as added by § 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.               To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.
| Date: May 1, 2007 | By:                                    | /s/ Salvatore R. DeFrancesco, Jr. |   |
|-------------------|----------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|--------|
|              |                                   | Salvatore R. DeFrancesco, Jr.,    |
|              | Treasurer and  Chief Financial Officer |
|                   |                                        |                                   |        |  |

 

1

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON,

Respondent

v.

LISA COLTON,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 286 EAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 1st day of October, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Articles 

#           Rectangular harmonic analysis applied to the geomagnetic field      

      December 31, 1981    

Spherical harmonic analysis of the earth's magnetic field is limited in the resolution that can be obtained. This limitation is caused by inadequacies of computers and of available data sets. The fundamental wavelength in spherical harmonic analysis is the circumference of the earth. To resolve wavelengths as short as 100 km would require a spherical harmonic analysis carried out to a degree and order 400 involving 160,800 coefficients. This is impractical even with modern computers. This limitation of spherical harmonic analysis can be overcome by using rectangular harmonic analysis in successively smaller areas so that the data are more fully utilized. Rectangular harmonic analysis is illustrated for data from Europe and then again for a subset of the data from a smaller area of Europe. The magnetic field at 15 observatories for the smaller area can be computed to an rms residual of only 7 nT for all three components using two sets of rectangular harmonic coefficients and the AWC/75 world chart model. Rectangular harmonic analysis and spherical harmonic analysis are complementary.

## Citation Information

### Explore Search

                  - Natural Hazards
                  - Europe

View All **
**Exhibit 12.1**I, Inga Beale, certify that:1. I havereviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Converium Holding AG;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) andinternal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and15d-15(f)) for the company and have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc) Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and5. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrols over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the company’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the company’s internal controls over financial reporting.     Date: June 29, 2006       By: /s/ Inga Beale       Inga Beale  *Chief Executive Officer, Converium Holding AG*
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 235 (Friday, December 6, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 97019]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-28665]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4830-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2024-0001]

Georgia; Amendment No. 11 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Georgia (FEMA-4830-DR), dated September 30, 2024, and 
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued November 4, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Georgia is hereby amended to include the following 
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by 
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration 
of September 30, 2024.

    Stephens and Wilkes Counties for Individual Assistance (already 
designated for Public Assistance, including direct Federal 
assistance).
    Baldwin, Crisp and Paulding Counties for Public Assistance, 
including direct Federal assistance.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, 
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster 
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance 
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and 
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing 
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other 
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially 
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2024-28665 Filed 12-5-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
```
# C_2020268EN.01002101.xml

| 14.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 268/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 268/21

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.9918 — Cummins/ETC/NPROXX)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2020/C 268/08)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | Cummins Inc. (‘Cummins’, USA), |
| --- | --- |

—

Cummins Inc. (‘Cummins’, USA),

| — | Enrichment Technology Company Ltd. (‘ETC’, UK), |
| --- | --- |

—

Enrichment Technology Company Ltd. (‘ETC’, UK),

| — | NPROXX B.V. (‘NPROXX’, the Netherlands). |
| --- | --- |

—

NPROXX B.V. (‘NPROXX’, the Netherlands).

Cummins and ETC acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of NPROXX.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

| — | for Cummins: Cummins is a globally active US manufacturer of diesel and gas engines and power supply systems, |
| --- | --- |

—

for Cummins: Cummins is a globally active US manufacturer of diesel and gas engines and power supply systems,

| — | for ETC: ETC is active in the design, development and manufacture of gas centrifuges for the enrichment of uranium for nuclear energy, |
| --- | --- |

—

for ETC: ETC is active in the design, development and manufacture of gas centrifuges for the enrichment of uranium for nuclear energy,

| — | for NPROXX: NPROXX is active in the design, development and sale of composite pressure vessels for the storage and transportation of hydrogen or for compressed natural gases (CNG). The pressure vessels are used for different applications in particular in the automotive and transport sectors. |
| --- | --- |

—

for NPROXX: NPROXX is active in the design, development and sale of composite pressure vessels for the storage and transportation of hydrogen or for compressed natural gases (CNG). The pressure vessels are used for different applications in particular in the automotive and transport sectors.

3.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.9918 — Cummins/ETC/NPROXX

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

1

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.

2

---
# C_2020012EN.01000401.xml

| 14.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 12/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 12/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9653 — Pon Tyre Group/Gilde Fund V/Gundlach Automotive Corporation)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2020/C 12/02)

On 23 December 2019, 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:

| — | 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 32019M9653. 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 32019M9653. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

---
ROOSEVELT KIRK,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-0059

_____________________________/

Opinion filed February 16, 2017.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Bay County.

Hentz McClellan, Judge.

Roosevelt Kirk, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the order denying Appellant’s motion for postconviction relief

brought pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. In summarily 

denying Appellant’s claim, the trial court relied on Atwell v. State, 128 So. 3d 167 

(Fla. 4th DCA 2013), which was quashed by the Florida Supreme Court during the 
2

pendency of this appeal. See Atwell v. State, 197 So. 3d 1040, 1050 (Fla. 2016). In 

light of the Florida Supreme Court’s precedent in Atwell, Appellant appears to be 

entitled to resentencing on the first-degree murder conviction. See Atwell, 197 So. 

3d at 1050. 

On appeal, the State argues that it is not apparent from the record whether 

Appellant was actually a juvenile at the time of the offense. The record on appeal 

does not contain any documents pertaining to this issue. Therefore, we remand for 

the trial court to conduct such proceedings as are necessary to determine whether 

Appellant was a juvenile at the time of the offense. If the trial court determines that 

Appellant was a juvenile at the time of the offense, he should be resentenced in 

conformance with chapter 2014-220, Laws of Florida, which has been codified in

sections 775.082, 921.1401, and 921.1402, Florida Statutes. See Atwell v. State, 

197 So. 3d at 1050; Woods v. State, 2016 WL 7217231 (Fla. Dec. 13, 2016).

REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions.

ROBERTS, C.J., LEWIS, and RAY, JJ., CONCUR.
Exhibit
      10.1



    GREENHUNTER

    ENERGY
      INC.

    


    July
      10,
      2007

    


    Dr.
      Pat
      Barker

    Chairman

    Orion
      Ethanol, Inc. 

    307
      S.
      Main Street 

    Pratt,
      Kansas 67124

    


    
      	 	
              RE:

            	
              Merger
                Agreement dated May 30, 2007 between Orion Ethanol, Inc. and GreenHunter
                Energy, Inc. (the “Merger
                Agreement”)

            


    

    


    Dear
      Pat:

    


    Pursuant
      to our phone conversation yesterday, it is our understanding that Orion Ethanol,
      Inc. does not agree to amend the terms of Merger Agreement in order to obtain
      the consent of West Coast Asset Management to vote in favor of the merger.
      Therefore, Orion Ethanol and GreenHunter Energy hereby mutually agree to
      terminate the Merger Agreement pursuant to Section 7.1(a) of the Merger
      Agreement.

    


    Please
      acknowledge your agreement to terminate the Merger Agreement by executing this
      letter in the space indicated below and returning one copy to the
      undersigned.

    


    I
      know
      both companies have worked hard in attempting to make this transaction work
      for
      everyone involved. Hopefully, there will be an opportunity for our two companies
      to work together in the future.

    


    Sincerely,

    


    /s/
      Michael K. Studer

    


    Michael
      K. Studer 

    President
      and COO

    


    AGREED
      AND ACCEPTED, this 11th day of July, 2007. 

    


    Orion
      Ethanol, Inc.

    


    By:        
      /s/
      Patrick N. Barker

    Name:   
      Patrick
      N. Barker

    Title:      Chairman
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 579 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 579

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 9, 2014

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To designate the United States courthouse located at 501 East Court 
 Street in Jackson, Mississippi, as the ``R. Jess Brown United States 
                             Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States courthouse located at 501 East Court Street in 
Jackson, Mississippi, shall be known and designated as the ``R. Jess 
Brown United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States courthouse referred to 
in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``R. Jess Brown 
United States Courthouse''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 8, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Luis E. HERRERA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4091

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

September 14, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 4.C
	 

	 
		CLAUDE JOBIN, P.ENG., M.SC.
	 

	 
		Professional Engineer
	 

	 
		CONSENT
	 

	 
			
				
				  TO:
				

			 	 	
				
				  Northwestern Mineral Ventures
				  Inc.
				

			 
	
				
				   
				

			 	 	
				
				   
				

			 
	
				
				  AND TO:
				

			 	 	
				
				  Berns & Berns, Counselors at
				  Law
				

			 
	
				
				   
				

			 	 	
				
				   
				

			 
	
				
				  AND TO:
				

			 	 	
				
				  U.S. Securities & Exchange
				  Commission
				

			 
	
				
				   
				

			 	 	
				
				  (the “Securities
				  Regulator”)
				

			 
	
				
				   
				

			 	 	
				
				   
				

			 
	
				
				  FROM:
				

			 	 	
				
				  Claude Jobin, P.Eng., M.Sc.
				  
				

			 
	
				
				   
				

			 	 	
				
				   
				

			 
	
				
				  Re: 
				

			 	 	
				
				  Technical Evaluation Report
				  43-101, Northwestern Mineral Ventures Inc. Uranium Properties, Niger, West
				  Africa 
				

			 
			

 

	 
		Reference is made to the technical report
		(the “Technical
		Report”) dated 2 May, 2006
		entitled “Technical Evaluation Report 43-101, Northwestern Mineral
		Ventures Inc. Uranium Properties, Niger, West Africa”, which we prepared
		for Northwestern Mineral Ventures Inc. (the “Corporation”). 
	 

	 
		We hereby consent to the filing of the
		Technical Report with the Securities Regulator, and to the written disclosure
		of the Technical Report and the inclusion of extracts therefrom or a summary
		thereof in the Corporation’s Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended
		December 31, 2006 (“Form 20-F”). We reserve the right to review such
		disclosures to ensure that our comments are contextually accurate.
	 

	 
		We further agree to being named as an expert
		in the Form 20-F.
	 

	 
		Dated this 30th day of June, 2007.
	 

	 
		 
	 

	 
			
				
				

			 	
				
				   
				

			 	
				
				   
				

			 	
				
				  
 /s/ Claude Jobin
				

			 
	
				
				   
				

			 	
				
				   
				

			 	
				
				   
				

			 	
				
				  Claude Jobin, P.Eng., M.Sc.
				

			 
	
				
				   
				

			 	
				
				   
				

			 	
				
				   
				

			 	
				
				  Professional Engineer
				

			 

 

	 
		159 Des Saules Ouest, Quebec, Quebec G1L 1E3
		Canada
	 

	 
		Tel-Fax: 418-623-4171
Russell K. SIMARD, Appellant, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Appellee.

No. 1D18-817

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

September 25, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
STATE of Louisiana v. Oliver VENTRY

NO. 2018-KH-0842

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

September 21, 2018

WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Petitioner has not demonstrated that petitioner sought review in the court(s) below before filing in this Court nor shown the "extraordinary circumstances" that would justify *910bypassing that level of review. La.S.Ct.R. X § 5(b).
Javonte WHITFIELD, DOC #Y60943, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-4546

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed June 8, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.