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

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 2 (Friday, January 3, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 332]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-31648]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[PO #4820000251]

Notice of Lease Sale and Notice of Availability of the Detailed 
Statement of Sale for the Coastal Plain 2025 Oil and Gas Lease Sale

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of lease sale.

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

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is changing the oil and 
gas lease sale bid opening date, previously published in the Federal 
Register on December 10, 2024, for 12 tracts in the Coastal Plain of 
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

DATES: The notice published on December 10, 2024, at 89 FR 99270, 
provided for opening of bids for the oil and gas lease sale on January 
9, 2025. However, in light of the December 30, 2024, Executive Order 
Providing for the Closing of Executive Departments and Agencies of the 
Federal Government on January 9, 2025, the BLM will open bids the 
following day, January 10, 2025, at 10 a.m. Alaska Standard Time 
(AKST).
    Notwithstanding the change in the date for opening of bids, the BLM 
is not changing the deadline for all sealed bids, which the BLM must 
receive by 4 p.m. AKST, January 6, 2025.

ADDRESSES: Sealed bids must be received at the BLM-Alaska State Office, 
ATTN: Wayne Svejnoha (AK932); 222 West 7th Avenue, #13; Anchorage, AK 
99513-7504. The Detailed Statement of Sale is available from the BLM 
Alaska website at https://www.blm.gov/alaska.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wayne Svejnoha, Supervisory Minerals 
and Energy Specialist, phone 907-271-4407 or email, [email protected]. 
Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of 
hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or 
TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services for contacting 
Mr. Svejnoha. Individuals outside the United States should use the 
relay services within their country to make international calls to the 
point-of-contact in the United States.

(Authority: Section 20001 of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (Pub. 
L. 115-97); 43 CFR 3131.4-1)

Erika Reed,
Acting State Director, Alaska.
[FR Doc. 2024-31648 Filed 12-31-24; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4331-10-P
```
Robert LITTLETON III v. STATE

2160403

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

September 15, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
STATE of Louisiana v. Eugene FRAZIER, Jr.

NO. 2018-KH-1068

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 29, 2019

Denied. Applicant has previously exhausted his right to state collateral review. See State ex rel. Frazier v. State, 15-1856 (La. 11/15/16), 206 So.3d 177.
EXHIBIT 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Alan Finkelstein, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB/A of Innovative Card
Technologies, Inc.;

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

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

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant 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 registrant, 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 registrant'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 registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

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

(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 registrant'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 registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: November 22, 2005          By: /s/ Alan Finkelstein
                                 ---------------------------------
                                 Alan Finkelstein
                                 Chief Executive Officer,
                                 President and Secretary
                                 (Principal Executive Officer)
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**




**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO**


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


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**




SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I,
      John
      A. Ward, III, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report
      of
      Innovative Card Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended
      September 30, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained
      in
      such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A fairly presents in all material respects
      the financial condition and results of operations of Innovative Card
      Technologies, Inc.


Dated:
              November 13, 2006
            By:
            /s/ John
              A.
              Ward, IIIJohn
                A. Ward, IIIChairman
                and CEO




I,
      Bennet
      P. Tchaikovsky, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report
      of
      Innovative Card Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended
      September 30, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained
      in
      such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects
      the financial condition and results of operations of Innovative Card
      Technologies, Inc.


Dated:
              November 13, 2006
            By:
            /s/ Bennet
              P.
              TchaikovskyBennet
              P. TchaikovskyChief
                Financial Officer




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      by
      Innovative Card Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Innovative Card
      Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
      or
      its staff upon request.
# C_2018399EN.01000701.xml

| 5.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky — Czech Republic) — Catlin Europe SE v O.K. Trans Praha spol. s r.o.

(Case C-21/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters - European order for payment procedure - Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 - Issue of an order for payment together with the application for the order - No translation of the application for the order - European order for payment declared enforceable - Application for review after expiry of the period for opposition - Service of judicial and extrajudicial documents - Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 - Applicability - Article 8 and Annex II - Informing the addressee of the right to refuse to accept a document instituting proceedings that has not been translated - Lack of the standard form - Consequences))

(2018/C 399/08)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší soud České republiky

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant (defendant at first instance): Catlin Europe SE

Applicant at first instance: O.K. Trans Praha spol. s r.o.

Operative part of the judgment

Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure and Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 must be interpreted as meaning that, where a European order for payment is served on the defendant without the application for the order, annexed to the order, being written in or accompanied by a translation into a language he is deemed to understand, as required by Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1393/2007, the defendant must be duly informed, by means of the standard form in Annex II to Regulation No 1393/2007, of his right to refuse to accept the document in question.

If that formal requirement is omitted, the procedure must be regularised in accordance with the provisions of Regulation No 1393/2007, by communicating to the addressee the standard form in Annex II to that regulation.

In that case, as a result of the procedural irregularity affecting the service of the European order for payment together with the application for the order, the order does not become enforceable and the period in which the defendant may lodge a statement of opposition cannot start to run, so that Article 20 of Regulation No 1896/2006 cannot apply.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 10.4.2017.

---
# C_2020414EN.01002202.xml

| 30.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 414/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 8 September 2020 — F. Reyher Nchfg. GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Hamburg

(Case C-419/20)

(2020/C 414/31)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: F. Reyher Nchfg. GmbH & Co. KG, represented by its general partner Verwaltungsgesellschaft F. Reyher Nchfg. mbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg

Question referred

Is there an infringement of EU law, which is a condition for entitlement to interest under EU law as developed by the Court of Justice of the European Union, where a Member State authority imposes a duty pursuant to EU law but a Member State court subsequently finds that the factual conditions for the imposition of the duty have not been met?

---
# C_2017221EN.01000201.xml

| 10.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 221/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 221/2

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per le Marche (Italy) lodged on 6 March 2017 — Comune di Castelbellino v Regione Marche and Others

(Case C-117/17)

(2017/C 221/02)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per le Marche

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Comune di Castelbellino

Applicant:

Defendants: Regione Marche, Ministero per i beni e le attività culturali, Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Regione Marche Servizio Infrastrutture Trasporti Energia — P.F. Rete Elettrica Regionale, Provincia di Ancona

Defendants:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Does EU law (and in particular Directive 2011/92/EU, (1) in the version in force on the date of adoption of the contested measures) preclude, as a rule, a national rule or administrative practice which allows EIA screening or EIAs in respect of plants already in existence at the time when the procedure takes place, or does it, on the other hand, allow exceptional circumstances justifying a derogation from the general rule that an EIA is, by nature, a preventative assessment to be taken in into account? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does EU law (and in particular Directive 2011/92/EU, (1) in the version in force on the date of adoption of the contested measures) preclude, as a rule, a national rule or administrative practice which allows EIA screening or EIAs in respect of plants already in existence at the time when the procedure takes place, or does it, on the other hand, allow exceptional circumstances justifying a derogation from the general rule that an EIA is, by nature, a preventative assessment to be taken in into account?

1

| 2. | More particularly, is such a derogation justified in the case in which a new law exempts from an EIA a specific project which would have been subject to screening on the basis of a decision of the national court that declared unconstitutional or disapplied an earlier rule providing for exemption? |
| --- | --- |

2.

More particularly, is such a derogation justified in the case in which a new law exempts from an EIA a specific project which would have been subject to screening on the basis of a decision of the national court that declared unconstitutional or disapplied an earlier rule providing for exemption?

---

(1)  Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 2012 L 26, p. 1).

1

---
##### 



COMSTOCK HOMEBUILDING COMPANIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
  EXHIBIT 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Comstock Homebuilding Companies, Inc.2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations, and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the period presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):
    /s/ Bruce J. LabovitzBruce J. Labovitz
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal financial officer)
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

 

_______________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

April 25, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132897 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 132898 Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

MARCIA DOWNS, f/k/a MARCIA Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, DOUGLAS, as Personal Representative Justices 

of the Estate of Natasha Douglas, Deceased, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 SC: 132897 

v COA: 256422 

Emmet CC: 04-008032-NH 

MARILYN S. KEEBLER, f/k/a MARILYN S. MORRIS, 

DEBBIE PLUIM, a/k/a DEBRA PLUIM, JEFFREY W. 

WILDER, and DANIEL J. VERBURG, d/b/a DANIEL 

VERBURG, M.D., P.C., d/b/a BAY VIEW OBSTETRICS 

& GYNECOLOGY, a/k/a BURNSCLINIC OBSTETRICS 

& GYNECOLOGY, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

MARCIA DOWNS, f/k/a MARCIA DOUGLAS, 

as Personal Representativeof the Estate of 

Natasha Douglas, Deceased, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 SC: 132898 

v COA: 256462

 Emmett CC:04-008040-NH 

NORTHERN MICHIGAN HOSPITALS, INC., 

d/b/a NORTHERN MICHIGAN HOSPITAL, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

______________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 28, 2006 judgment 

of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it appearing to this Court that the case of Mullins v St. 

Joseph Mercy Hospital (Docket No. 131879) is pending on appeal before this Court and that the 

decision in that case may resolve an issue raised in the present application for leave to appeal, we 

ORDER that the application be held in ABEYANCE pending the decision in that case. 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

April 25, 2007 

 Clerk
EXHIBIT 32.1

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

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

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

The undersigned, Gary Musil, President, Secretary, Treasurer and a Director of Logicom Inc., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)           the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Logicom Inc. for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2005 (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 Logicom Inc.

 
| Dated:  February 17, 2006 |   |                                         |
|---------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------|
|                      |   |                                         |
|                      |   |                                         |
|                      |   | /s/ Gary Musil                               |   |
|                      |   | Gary Musil                                   |
|                      |   | President, Secretary, Treasurer and Director |
|                      |   | Logicom Inc.                                 |
|                      |   |                                         |
|                      |   |                                         |
|                      |   |                                         |   |
|                      |   |                                         |
|                      |   |                                         |
|                      |   |                                         |
|                           |        |                                              |  |  |

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Logicom Inc. and will be retained by Logicom Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EX PARTE Bobby Ray JONES

1160772 (CR-16-0113)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

July 7, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ORLANDO LAY-GONZALEZ, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney 

General,

Respondent.

No. 14-70727

Agency No. A037-175-011

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 12, 2018**

San Francisco, California

Before: TASHIMA and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN,*** District 

Judge.

Petitioner Orlando Lay-Gonzalez petitions for review of a decision of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) determining that Lay-Gonzalez’s conviction 

 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without 

oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Edward R. Korman, United States District Judge for the 

Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.

FILED

JUN 14 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

for coercion under Nevada Revised Statute § 207.190(2)(a) was categorically a 

crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16(b). 

The Supreme Court, however, has recently held that § 16(b) is 

unconstitutionally vague. See Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204, 1223 (2018). In 

addition, we recently held that coercion under Nevada Revised Statute § 207.190 is 

not a crime of violence under the Sentencing Guidelines. United States v. Edling, 

No. 16-10457, slip op. at 11 (9th Cir. Jun. 8, 2018). In light of Dimaya and the 

BIA’s reliance on § 16(b), and Edling, Lay-Gonzalez’s petition is GRANTED and 

we REMAND to the BIA for further proceedings.
The Honorable James Maxwell Moody, United States District Judge for the

1

Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable

H. David Young, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-1874

___________

Repoleon Gilbert, *

 *

Appellant, *

 *

v. * Appeal from the United States

 * District Court for the

Marshall Dale Reed, Warden, Cummins * Eastern District of Arkansas.

Unit; Robert Long, Food Manager, *

Cummins Unit; Bruce Collins, * [UNPUBLISHED]

Assistant Warden, Cummins Unit, *

 *

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: September 5, 1997

 Filed: September 19, 1997

___________

Before McMILLIAN, BEAM, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Repoleon Gilbert, an Arkansas inmate, appeals from the district court’s order 1

granting summary judgment in favor of defendant prison officials in his 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 action. After review of the record and the parties& briefs on appeal, we 
-2-

conclude that the judgment of the district court was correct, and that an extended

opinion would have no precedential value. 

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
The EX GREENHOUSE, LLC and Sajal Roy v. The LOUISIANA BOARD OF PHARMACY

NO. 2019-CC-0233

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 18, 2019

*777Stay denied. Writ denied.

GENOVESE, J., would grant and remand the matter to the court of appeal for briefing, argument, and full opinion.