alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2008267EN.01003001.xml

| 8.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 267/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 267/30

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 2 October 2008

appointing an Austrian member and alternate member of the Committee of the Regions

(2008/778/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 263 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal of the Austrian Government,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 24 January 2006, the Council adopted Decision 2006/116/EC appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2006 to 25 January 2010 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 24 January 2006, the Council adopted Decision 2006/116/EC appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2006 to 25 January 2010 (1).

| (2) | A member’s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the expiry of the mandate of Dr Herwig VAN STAA. An alternate members’ seat has become vacant following the expiry of the mandate of Ms Elisabeth ZANON, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

A member’s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the expiry of the mandate of Dr Herwig VAN STAA. An alternate members’ seat has become vacant following the expiry of the mandate of Ms Elisabeth ZANON,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following are hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2010:

| (a) | as a member:
  Dr Herwig VAN STAA, Präsident des Tiroler Landtages. |
| --- | --- |

(a)

as a member:

Dr Herwig VAN STAA, Präsident des Tiroler Landtages.

| (b) | as an alternate member:
  Mr Günther PLATTER, Landeshauptmann, Tirol. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

as an alternate member:

Mr Günther PLATTER, Landeshauptmann, Tirol.

Article 2

This Decision shall take effect on the day of its adoption.

Done at Luxembourg, 2 October 2008.

For the Council

The President

X. BERTRAND

---

(1)  
  OJ L 56, 25.2.2006, p. 75.

1

---
James A. COOPER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9792.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 20, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-1250

MELVYN DUANE SALTER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Ct. No. 553-18L)

Submitted: August 22, 2019 Decided: August 26, 2019

Before KING and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Melvyn Duane Salter, Appellant Pro Se. Joan Iris Oppenheimer, Curtis Clarence Pett, 

Tax Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Melvyn Duane Salter appeals from the tax court’s order upholding the 

Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s proposed levy action with respect to his income tax 

liability for the tax years 2009 through 2011. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the tax court. Salter v. 

Comm’r of Internal Revenue, No. 553-18L (T.C. Feb. 5, 2019). 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          61,860
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             596
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                   275
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    606,366
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         606,366
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           606,366
<LOANS>                                        940,362
<ALLOWANCE>                                     12,581
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,654,920
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,196,834
<SHORT-TERM>                                   223,936
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             14,802
<LONG-TERM>                                     64,564
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           835
<OTHER-SE>                                     153,949
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,654,920
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 40,442
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               19,852
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    77
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                60,371
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              22,889
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              30,700
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           29,671
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    2,737
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 355
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 19,208
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,004
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      12,004
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,805
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.32
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.20
<LOANS-NON>                                      3,765
<LOANS-PAST>                                     7,699
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    58
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  1,400
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                10,756
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    1,444
<RECOVERIES>                                       532
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               12,581
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            12,581
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
[No. 21372-9-II.

Division Two.

October 24, 1997.]

#### Janice Niwa, *Appellant,*v. Sprouse Reitz Stores, Inc., *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Mason County, No. 89-2-00078-8, James B. Sawyer II, J., entered October 11, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Seinfeld, J., concurred in by Houghton, C.J., and Armstrong, J.
# L_2008024EN.01004201.xml

| 29.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 24/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 24/42

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 20 December 2007

amending the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice

(2008/79/EC, Euratom)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular the second paragraph of Article 245 thereof,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular the second paragraph of Article 160 thereof,

Having regard to the request of the Court of Justice of 11 July 2007,

Having regard to the opinion of the Commission of 20 November 2007,

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament of 29 November 2007,

Whereas:

Provision should be made to allow derogations from certain provisions of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice with regard to the procedure governing urgent references for a preliminary ruling concerning the area of freedom, security and justice, and it is appropriate, for the sake of good order, that the provision authorising such derogations should also refer to the expedited and accelerated procedures laid down in the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following Article shall be inserted after Article 23 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice:

‘Article 23a

The Rules of Procedure may provide for an expedited or accelerated procedure and, for references for a preliminary ruling relating to the area of freedom, security and justice, an urgent procedure.

Those procedures may provide, in respect of the submission of statements of case or written observations, for a shorter period than that provided for by Article 23, and, in derogation from the fourth paragraph of Article 20, for the case to be determined without a submission from the Advocate General.

In addition, the urgent procedure may provide for restriction of the parties and other interested persons mentioned in Article 23, authorised to submit statements of case or written observations and, in cases of extreme urgency, for the written stage of the procedure to be omitted.’

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the first day of the second month following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 20 December 2007.

For the Council

The President

F. NUNES CORREIA

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tony Ragins, Appellant.

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sangiorgio, J.), rendered on February 7, 1983, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The credibility of the identification of the defendant by the complainant based upon her acquaintance with him for seven years, as opposed to defendant’s alibi defense, presented a jury question. There is no basis in the record for disturbing the jury’s resolution of that question. It cannot be said that, upon this record, the People failed to prove defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court’s refusal to charge robbery in the third degree was not error as no reasonable view of this record could support a conclusion that defendant committed the robbery but did not use a firearm (CPL 300.50 [1], [2]; *People v Blim,*63 NY2d 718; *People v Glover,*57 NY2d 61; *People v Scarborough,*49 NY2d 364; *People v Everett,*103 AD2d 978). O’Connor, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.
[No. 19824-0-II.

Division Two.

August 8, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Brandon Craig Dachs, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Clallam County, No. 95-1-00013-3, James D. Roper, J., entered August 4,1995. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Hunt, J., concurred in by Bridgewater, A.C.J., and Armstrong, J.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 102 (Friday, May 26, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 27987]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12953]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service


Endangered and Threatened Species Permit Applications

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of receipt of applications.

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

    The following applicants have applied for a permit to conduct 
certain activities with endangered species. This notice is provided 
pursuant to section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq.).

Permit No. PRT-802776

    Applicant: 3D/Environmental, Cincinnati, Ohio.
    The applicant requests a permit to conduct mussel surveys which 
involve non-lethal take of the Eastern fanshell mussel (Cyprogenia 
stegaris) in the Wabash River, Wabash County, Indiana, for enhancement 
of propagation or survival of the species.

Permit No. PRT-802777

    Applicant: John O. Whitaker, Jr., Terre Haute, Indiana.
    The applicant requests a permit to bank Indiana bats (Myotis 
sodalis) and gray bats (Myotis grisescens) in the States of Indiana, 
Ohio, Illinois, and Kentucky for enhancement of propagation or survival 
of the species.
    Written data or comments should be submitted to the Regional 
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Endangered 
Species, 1 Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, Minnesota 55111-4056, and must 
be received within 30 days of the date of this publication.
    Documents and other information submitted with these applications 
are available for review by any party who submits a written request for 
a copy of such documents to the following office within 30 days of the 
date of publication of this notice: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
Division of Endangered Species, 1 Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, 
Minnesota 55111-5046. Telephone: (612/725-3536, x250); FAX: (612/725-
3526).

    Dated: May 19, 1995.
John A. Blankenship,
Assistant Regional Director, Ecological Services, Region 3, Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, Minnesota.
[FR Doc. 95-12953 Filed 5-25-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-M
SCWC-20-0000606

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII

STATE OF HAWAII,

Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

MAXWELL BENJAMIN WERBLUN,

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-20-0000606; CASE NO. 2DTC-20-694722)

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.)

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant’s Application for Writ 

of Certiorari, filed on September 16, 2022, is hereby rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, October 31, 2022.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ Todd W. Eddins

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-20-0000606

31-OCT-2022

08:59 AM

Dkt. 9 ODAC
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





In connection with the annual Report of Rolling Technologies, Inc.
(the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended July 31, 2011 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
“Report”), I, Tee Kai Shen, Chief Executive 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) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934; and



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



|By:    | /s/Tee Kai Shen                                                      
|------ | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
|Name:  | Tee Kai Shen                                                         
|Title: | Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer and Director
|Date:  | October 31, 2011                                                     



This certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
J. A1 5 0 37 /18

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

L.M.B. : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA
v. : : J.L.B

. , : No. 101 M DA 20 18
: Appellant :

Appeal from the Order Entered August 18, 2017, in the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County Domestic Relations Division at No. 50803

BEFORE: PANELLA, J., MURRAY , J., AND FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED JUNE 07, 2018

J.L.B. appeals pro se from the August 18, 2017 order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County that dismissed and denied his exceptions “filed to the hearing officer’s report dated June 23, 2017 and order of court of same date . . . which order dismissed and denied [appellant’s] petition to modify the support order of September 26, 2016.” 1 We dismiss

t his appeal. In reviewing appellant’s brief, we note that appellant fails t o set forth the order on appeal. A dditionally, a lthough appellant includes a “statement of [s]cope and standard of view [sic],” appellant contends that “[t]he [s]cope

of review in this case conflicts with the facts” in that appellant does not have

1 Unnecessary capitalization omitted.J. A1 5 0 37 /18

- 2

-

a current Pennsylvania pesticides license. Appellant sets forth the following statement of question involved:

How may the lower court judges agree the child support payment is wrong, and over look [sic] the criminal act of [e]xtortion / exaction that is a felony offence [sic] wit h the use of [f]ederal [m]ail system

. [sic] (that offence [sic] carries up too [sic] a 20 year jail sent a nce [sic], and it’s a felony crime for a judge not too [s ic] report a felony crime? Appellant’s brief at 1.
Moreover, a ppellant’s summary of the argument sta tes that the order from which appellant appeals from does not co m p l y with the Department of Labor’s requirements. Appellant’s seven

- sentence argument is incomprehensible and fails to include citations to legal authority and record citations. Additionally, appellant fails to include a short conclusion stating the precise relief sought, but, rather, includes a section entitled “ [ t ] ransfer interrupted.” As this court has stated, where, as here, “a court has to guess what issues an appellant is appealing, that is not enough for meaningful

review.” Jones v. Jones , 878 A.2d 86, 89 (Pa.Super. 2005) (citation omitted). Although we are mindful that appellant is proceeding pro se , his choice to do so does not relieve him of his responsibility to properly raise and develop appealable claims. See Smathers v. Smathers , 670 A.2d 1159, 1160 (Pa.Super. 1996) . Moreover, this court will not act as appellant’s counsel.

See id. Accordingly, because the substantial defects in appellant’s briefJ. A1 5 0 37 /18

- 3

-

preclude us from conducting any meaningful judicial review, we dismiss this appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. Rule 2101; see also Smathers , 670 A.2d at

1160

- 1161. Appeal dismissed. Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 06/07/2018
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1998
<CASH>                                          368149
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1777761
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     731272
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               3407109
<PP&E>                                         1903483
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1240835
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 6058550
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2840392
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       5821802
<OTHER-SE>                                   (2625253)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   6058550
<SALES>                                        4513235
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               4516239
<CGS>                                          3133311
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  5473986
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 14151
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               37317
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (1009215)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (1009215)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (1009215)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.35)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.35)
        

</TABLE>
[Nos. 18244-1-II; 18450-8-II.

Division Two.

October 3, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Cynthia L. Hoff, *Appellant.*The State of Washington, *Appellant,*v. Teresa A. Baxter, *Respondent.*

Appeals from judgments of the Superior Court for Lewis County, Nos. 93-1-00314-0, 93-1-00313-1, David R. Draper, J., entered March 11 and July 11, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Armstrong, J., concurred in by Seinfeld and Hunt, JJ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

FORT WAYNE DIVISION 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CASE NO.: 1:15-CR-60-TLS-1 

 ) 

CASSANDRA WARD ) 

 

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

 This matter is before the Court on the Findings and Recommendation of the United States 

Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 24], filed on March 16, 2016. The Defendant has waived objection to 

the Findings and Recommendation, and the Court, being duly advised, adopts the Findings and 

Recommendation [ECF No. 24] in its entirety and accepts the recommended disposition. Subject 

to this Court’s consideration of the Plea Agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 11(c), the plea of guilty to the offense charged in Count One (1) of the Indictment is 

hereby accepted, and the Defendant is adjudged guilty of such offense. 

 The notice of sentencing and pre-sentence scheduling deadlines will be issued by separate 

order.

SO ORDERED on April 6, 2016. 

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

 THERESA L. SPRINGMANN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

MICHAEL ODELL LAMARR and )

MAUREEN THERESE LAMARR, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) Case No. 1:15cv318

 )

IMC CREDIT SERVICES LLC d/b/a )

STATEWIDE CREDIT ASSOCIATION, )

Defendant. )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Joint Stipulation to Dismiss With

Prejudice [DE 21]. The parties request that this matter be dismissed with prejudice. [Id.]

The Stipulation is signed by all parties who have appeared. [Id.]

As the Notice meets the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), the

Plaintiff’s Complaint [DE 1] is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, the parties to pay their

respective costs and fees without reimbursement. 

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: May 24, 2016

s/Philip P. Simon 

PHILIP P. SIMON, CHIEF JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00318-PPS-SLC document 22 filed 05/24/16 page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

FORT WAYNE DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) 

) 

 v. ) CASE NO.: 1:15-CR-3-TLS-1 

) 

DONALD J. CUPP ) 

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

This matter is before the Court on the Findings and Recommendation of the United States 

Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 53], filed on March 25, 2016. The Defendant has waived objection 

to the Findings and Recommendation, and the Court, being duly advised, adopts the Findings 

and Recommendation [ECF No. 53] in its entirety and accepts the recommended disposition. 

Subject to this Court’s consideration of the Plea Agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 11(c), the plea of guilty to the offense charged in Count One (1) of the Indictment is 

hereby accepted, and the Defendant is adjudged guilty of such offense. 

The notice of sentencing and pre-sentence scheduling deadlines will be issued by separate 

order.

SO ORDERED on April 11, 2016. 

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

THERESA L. SPRINGMANN 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
#### O'CLAIR v. HALE.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

January 17, 1899.)

Action by Peter O’Clair against Led-yard P. Biale, as receiver, etc.

No opinion. Motion denied. See 54 N. Y. Supp. 388.