alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 137 (Wednesday, July 21, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38524-38525]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15430]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-544, OMB Control No. 3235-0604]


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange 
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 
20549-2736

Extension:
    Form 10-D

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange 
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management 
and Budget this request for extension of the previously approved 
collection of information discussed below.
    Form 10-D is a periodic report used by asset-backed issuers to file 
distribution and pool performance information pursuant to Rule 13a-17 
(17 CFR 240.13a-17) or Rule 15d-17 (17 CFR 240.15d-17) of the 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') (15 U.S.C. 78a et 
seq.). The form is required to be filed within 15 days after each 
required distribution date on the asset-backed securities, as specified 
in

[[Page 38525]]

the governing documents for such securities. The information provided 
by Form 10-D is mandatory and all information is made available to the 
public upon request. Form 10-D takes approximately 39.0 hours per 
response to prepare and is filed by approximately 8,258 respondents. We 
estimate that 75% of the 39.0 hours per response (29.25 hours) is 
prepared by the company for a total annual reporting burden of 241,547 
hours (29.25 hours per response x 8,258 responses).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information 
collection at the following website: www.reginfo.gov. Find this 
particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day 
Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function. 
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice 
to (i) www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain and (ii) David Bottom, 
Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, 
c/o Cynthia Roscoe, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or by 
sending an email to: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#abfbf9eaf4e6cac2c7c9c4d3ebd8cec885ccc4dd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="92c2c0d3cddff3fbfef0fdead2e1f7f1bcf5fde4">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: July 14, 2021.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-15430 Filed 7-20-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Petra Perez, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lombardo, J.), rendered April 16, 1984, convicting her of criminal solicitation in the second degree and tampering with a witness in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment modified, on the law, by reversing defendant’s conviction of tampering with a witness in the third degree, the sentence imposed thereon is vacated, and said count of the indictment is dismissed. As so modified, judgment affirmed. The matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

There is insufficient evidence in the record to support the jury’s finding that defendant knew, as required by the relevant statute (Penal Law § 215.11), that Ellemuel Rodriquez was about to be called as a witness in a criminal proceeding. Accordingly, the judgment must be modified by reversing defendant’s conviction on that count of the indictment charging her with tampering with a witness in the third degree, vacating the sentence imposed thereon and dismissing said count of the indictment *(see, People v La Belle,*18 NY2d 405).

However, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found that defendant was guilty of criminal solicitation in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620; *Jackson v Virginia,*443 US 307).

We have reviewed the remaining arguments raised by defendant regarding alleged errors committed by the trial court in its charge and by the prosecutor during the trial and in his summation, and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law, or without merit. Mangano, J. P., Thompson, Bracken and Brown, JJ., concur.
* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is

not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,

and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value

consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

May 4, 2011

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

CHICAGO INSURANCE COMPANY,

an Illinois corporation,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

JAN B. HAMILTON, Ph.D., d/b/a

Nutritional Biomedicine,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-1381

(D.C. No. 1:09-CV-01815-LTB-MJW)

(D. Colo.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before MURPHY, HARTZ, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.

Chicago Insurance Co. (“CIC”) filed this diversity case seeking a

declaratory judgment that Jan Hamilton wasn’t covered for losses she incurred as

a result of disciplinary proceedings brought by the Colorado State Board of

Medical Examiners. When Ms. Hamilton failed to file a timely answer to CIC’s

complaint and missed multiple discovery deadlines, a magistrate judge
-2-

recommended default judgment in favor of CIC. He advised Ms. Hamilton of her

right to object to the recommendation, the deadline for doing so, and that failing

to object would prejudice review in the district and appellate courts. Nonetheless,

Ms. Hamilton did not file any objection. She now appeals the resulting default

judgment. 

Unless a party files a timely objection in the district court, she can’t

ordinarily challenge the magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions on appeal. See

Duffield v. Jackson, 545 F.3d 1234, 1237 (10th Cir. 2008). But we have

recognized two exceptions: 1) when a pro se litigant has not been informed of the

time period for objecting and the consequences of failing to object; or 2) when the

interests of justice require review. Id. Ms. Hamilton can’t invoke the first

exception: there’s no dispute that the magistrate judge informed her both of the

time period for objecting and the consequences of failing to do so. Neither can

she prevail on the second. The “interest of justice” standard is, this court has

held, akin to plain error review, and Ms. Hamilton simply doesn’t explain how

default judgment in this case — entered after she repeatedly failed to comply with

the magistrate’s orders — “seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public

reputation of judicial proceedings.” See Morales-Fernandez v. INS, 418 F.3d

1116, 1122-23 (10th Cir. 2005). 

The judgment of the district court is affirmed. Because Ms. Hamilton

failed to present any nonfrivolous arguments in support of the issues on appeal,
-3-

her motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, as are all other motions

pending in this case.

Entered for the Court

Neil M. Gorsuch

Circuit Judge
JJn tbe Wniteb �tates (!Court of jf eberal ([laitns 

No. 18-1828T 

(Filed: May 16, 2019) 

************************************* 

* 

WILLIAM P. JACKSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

THE UNITED STATES, 

Defendant. 

*

* Tucker Act; Subject Matter Jurisdiction; Tax; 

* Motion to Dismiss; Tax Refund; Wrongful Levy;

* Defamation; Intentional Infliction of Emotional

* Distress; Fifth Amendment Taking; Due Process;

* Tort.

* 

* 

* 

* 

************************************* 

William P. Jackson, Stark City, MO,pro se. 

Sophia Siddiqui, U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division, Court of Federal Claims Section, 

Washington, D.C., with whom were Richard E. Zuckerman, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney 

General, David l Pincus, Chief, Court of Federal Claims Section, for Defendant. 

OPINION AND ORDER 

DAMI CH, Senior Judge. 

On November 6, 2018, Plaintiff, William P. Jackson ("Mr. Jackson"), actingpro se, filed 

a Complaint with this Court alleging that the United States, or a contractor of the United States, 

placed a "fraudulent Notice of Federal Tax Liens" on his property, which caused him to lose a 

large client and caused his business sales to drop. Comp!. at 1-2. Mr. Jackson seeks damages of 

$2,663,312.30. Comp!. at 3. 

On February 28, 2019, Defendant, the United States ("the Government"), filed a Motion 

to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b )( l) of the Rules of the 

United States Court of Federal Claims ("RCFC"). ECF No. 10. On March 26, 2019 Mr. Jackson 

filed his response. ECF No. 11. On April 12, 2019, the Government replied. 1 ECF No. 12. 

1 On May 1, 2019, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs complaint pursuant to RCFC Rule 41 

because Plaintiff failed to pay the mandatory filing fee or file an application to proceed in forma 

pauperis. On May 13, 2019, the Court received Plaintiffs filing fee. Therefore, on May 16, 

2019, the Comt granted Plaintiffs motion to reopen the case. 

7018 0040 0001 1393 4311
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                      28,282,000
<SECURITIES>                                25,602,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,028,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   500,000
<INVENTORY>                                 12,218,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            75,553,000
<PP&E>                                       4,599,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 855,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              84,663,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       14,039,000
<BONDS>                                        114,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       232,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  84,431,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                84,663,000
<SALES>                                     11,768,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,768,000
<CGS>                                       18,220,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               30,393,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               500,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              59,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (34,710,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (34,710,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (34,710,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.59)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.59)


</TABLE>
# C_2023179EN.01002601.xml

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Nouryon Industrial Chemicals and Others v Commission

(Case T-868/19) (1)

(REACH - Evaluation of registration dossiers and compliance check of information provided by registrants - Request for further studies for the purposes of the registration dossier for dimethyl ether - Pre-natal developmental toxicity study - Extended one-generation reproductive toxicity study - Dose-range finding study - Article 51(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 - Animal testing - Article 25 of Regulation No 1907/2006 - Manifest error of assessment - Proportionality)

(2023/C 179/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Nouryon Industrial Chemicals BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands), Knoell NL BV (Maarssen, Netherlands), Grillo-Werke AG (Duisburg, Germany), PCC Trade & Services GmbH (Duisburg) (represented by: R. Cana, Z. Romata and H. Widemann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lindenthal and K. Mifsud-Bonnici, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: M. Søndahl Wolff, acting as Agent), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman, A. Hanje and J. Langer, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Runeskjöld, C. Meyer-Seitz, M. Salborn Hodgson, H. Shev, H. Eklinder, R. Shahsavan Eriksson and O. Simonsson, acting as Agents), European Chemicals Agency (represented by: M. Heikkilä, W. Broere, S. Mahoney and N. Herbatschek, acting as Agents)

Re:

By their action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicants seek annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2019) 7336 final of 16 October 2019 on the compliance check of a registration of dimethyl ether, adopted on referral by the European Chemicals Agency, on the basis of Article 51(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, including the costs relating to the proceedings for interim relief; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, including the costs relating to the proceedings for interim relief;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Kingdom of Sweden and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Kingdom of Sweden and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 68, 2.3.2020.

---
# Eiropas Savienības C 188/2022

| | ISSN 1977-0952 |
| --- | --- |
| Eiropas Savienības
  Oficiālais Vēstnesis | C 188 |
| | |
| Izdevums latviešu valodā | Informācija un paziņojumi | 65. gadagājums2022. gada 10. maijs |

ISSN 1977-0952

Eiropas Savienības

Oficiālais Vēstnesis

C 188

Izdevums latviešu valodā

Informācija un paziņojumi

65. gadagājums2022. gada 10. maijs

---

| Saturs | Lappuse |
| --- | --- |
| | Labojumi |
| | Labojums kopsavilkumā par Eiropas Komisijas lēmumiem, kuri attiecas uz licencēm, kas nepieciešamas, lai laistu tirgū un/vai lietotu vielas, kuras minētas Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes Regulas (EK) Nr. 1907/2006, kas attiecas uz ķimikāliju reģistrēšanu, vērtēšanu, licencēšanu un ierobežošanu (REACH), XIV pielikumā (Publicēts saskaņā ar Regulas (EK) Nr. 1907/2006 64. panta 9. punktu) (2022/C 131/05) ( OV C 131, 24.3.2022. ) | 1 |

Saturs

Lappuse

Labojumi

Labojums kopsavilkumā par Eiropas Komisijas lēmumiem, kuri attiecas uz licencēm, kas nepieciešamas, lai laistu tirgū un/vai lietotu vielas, kuras minētas Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes Regulas (EK) Nr. 1907/2006, kas attiecas uz ķimikāliju reģistrēšanu, vērtēšanu, licencēšanu un ierobežošanu (REACH), XIV pielikumā (Publicēts saskaņā ar Regulas (EK) Nr. 1907/2006 64. panta 9. punktu) (2022/C 131/05) ( OV C 131, 24.3.2022. )

REACH

( OV C 131, 24.3.2022. )

1

---

| LV | |
| --- | --- |

LV

---

Labojumi

| 10.5.2022 | LV | Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis | C 188/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2022

LV

Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis

C 188/1

---

Labojums kopsavilkumā par Eiropas Komisijas lēmumiem, kuri attiecas uz licencēm, kas nepieciešamas, lai laistu tirgū un/vai lietotu vielas, kuras minētas Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes Regulas (EK) Nr. 1907/2006, kas attiecas uz ķimikāliju reģistrēšanu, vērtēšanu, licencēšanu un ierobežošanu (REACH), XIV pielikumā (Publicēts saskaņā ar Regulas (EK) Nr. 1907/2006 64. panta 9. punktu) (2022/C 131/05)

(
  “Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis” C 131, 2022. gada 24. marts
  )

(2022/C 188/01)

5. lappusē tabulas otrajā slejā:

tekstu:

“2022. gada 27. marts”

lasīt šādi:

“2022. gada 17. marts”.

---
Exhibit 31.1





CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002







I, Yonglin Du, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this Form 10-KSB of Dahua 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 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 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:   March 27, 2007



|                | 
|--------------- | 
|/s/ Yonglin Du  | 
|President & CEO |
# C_2020019EN.01005101.xml

| 20.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/51

---

Order of the General Court of 18 November 2019 — Dickmanns v EUIPO

(Case T-181/19) (1)

(Civil Service - Members of the temporary staff - Fixed-term contract with a termination clause - Clause terminating the contract in the event that the name of the agent is not included on the reserve list of a competition - Purely confirmatory act - Time limit for complaints - Inadmissibility)

(2020/C 19/62)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Sigrid Dickmanns (Gran Alacant, Spain) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Lukosiütè, acting as Agent, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking, first, annulment of the decision of EUIPO of 4 June 2018 rejecting the applicant’s requests to remove the termination clause in Article 5 of her contract, reclassify her contract as a contract of indefinite duration, withdraw, if necessary, the decision of 14 December 2017 and grant a second contract extension beyond 30 September 2018 or, at least, include her in the procedure for a second renewal of temporary agent contracts in accordance with the guidelines for the renewal of temporary agent contracts of 28 January 2016 and, second, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | The European Union Intellectual Property Office shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Sigrid Dickmanns. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Union Intellectual Property Office shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Sigrid Dickmanns.

---

(1)  OJ C 206, 17.6.2019.

---
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of New Jersey Mining
Company, (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2007, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Fred W. Brackebusch, President, Treasurer and Director of New
Jersey Mining 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.

Date: May 11, 2007

By /s/ FRED W. BRACKEBUSCH Fred W. Brackebusch,
President, Treasurer & Director

---