alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 134 (Friday, July 16, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 37738]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15126]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[B-23-2021]


Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 7--Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, Authorization 
of Production Activity, IPR Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Pharmaceutical 
Products), Canovanas, Puerto Rico

    On March 15, 2021, IPR Pharmaceuticals, Inc., submitted a 
notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its 
facility within FTZ 7, in Canovanas, Puerto Rico.
    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations 
of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the Federal 
Register inviting public comment (86 FR 15642, March 24, 2021). On July 
13, 2021, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's decision that 
no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The 
production activity described in the notification was authorized, 
subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, including 
Section 400.14.

    Dated: July 13, 2021.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-15126 Filed 7-15-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
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, Richard Kehmeier, President, Director,  President, Chief Executive and Operating Officer, Treasurer, and Secretary of American Goldfields Inc. (the “Company”) certifies, under the standards set forth and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended January 31, 2011 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange  Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and  results  of operations of the Company.








Dated: April 29, 2011





By: /s/ Richard Kehmeier


Name: Richard Kehmeier


Title: President, Chief Executive and


Operation Officer, Treasurer, Secretary,


and Director











A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to American Goldfields Inc. and will be retained by American Goldfields Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2019172EN.01001701.xml

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/17

---

Appeal brought on 21 February 2019 by Syriatel Mobile Telecom (Joint Stock Company) against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 12 December 2018 in Case T-411/16 Syriatel Mobile Telecom v Council

(Case C-159/19 P)

(2019/C 172/20)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Syriatel Mobile Telecom (Joint Stock Company) (represented by: E. Ruchat, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant submits that the Court should:

| — | Declare the appellant’s action admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the appellant’s action admissible and well founded;

| — | Accordingly, set aside the judgment of 12 December 2018 given by the General Court of the European Union in Case T-411/16, Syriatel Mobile Telecom v Council of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

Accordingly, set aside the judgment of 12 December 2018 given by the General Court of the European Union in Case T-411/16, Syriatel Mobile Telecom v Council of the European Union;

And, giving judgment itself,

| — | Annul Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 (1) and its subsequent implementing acts, in so far as they concern the appellant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 (1) and its subsequent implementing acts, in so far as they concern the appellant;

| — | Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant relies on three grounds:

The first ground of appeal, alleging an error of law in that the General Court disregarded the applicant’s right to be heard prior to the adoption of new restrictive measures, as enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights;

The second ground of appeal, alleging an error of law and distortion of the facts in so far as the General Court disregarded the items submitted by the applicant in support of its action for annulment to demonstrate that it did not support the Syrian regime;

The third ground of appeal, alleging an error of law in so far as the General Court did not hold that Articles 27 and 28 of Decision 2013/255/CFSP, (2) according to which membership of the Al-Assad or Makhlouf families constitutes an autonomous criterion justifying the imposition of sanctions, were illegal and in so far as it, on the same occasion, reversed the burden of proof.

---

(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ L 141, p. 125).

(2)  Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ L 147, p. 14).

---
#### YU QUN HUANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 09-72497.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 15, 2011.*

Filed June 29, 2011.

Chung N. Phang, Esquire, Law Offices of Chung N. Phang, Oakland, CA, for Petitioner.

Surell Brady, Esquire, Trial, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Yu Qun Huang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of *446Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s order finding Huang removable and denying her application under 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(4)(B) for waiver of the joint filing requirement to remove the conditional basis of her lawful permanent resident status. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s denial of the waiver, *Oropeza-Wong v. Gonzales,*406 F.3d 1135, 1147 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility finding where the record reveals several internal inconsistencies in Huang’s testimony regarding her and her former spouse’s living arrangements, where her former spouse lived after his surgery, and who cared for him during his convalescence. Because these inconsistencies go to the heart of whether the marriage was entered into in good faith, substantial evidence supports the denial of Huang’s waiver application. *See id.*at 1148; 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(4) (alien must demonstrate eligibility for said waiver).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 720 

To repeal the CLASS program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 4, 2011 

Mr. THUNE (for himself and Mr. GRAHAM) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To repeal the CLASS program. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Repeal the CLASS 

5 Entitlement Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF CLASS PROGRAM. 

7 (a) REPEAL.—Title XXXII of the Public Health 

8 Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ll et seq.; relating to the 

9 CLASS program) is repealed. 

10 (b) CONFORMING CHANGES.— 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 720 IS

1 (1) Title VIII of the Patient Protection and Af2 fordable Care Act (Public Law 111–148; 124 Stat. 

3 119, 846–847) is repealed. 

4 (2) Section 1902(a) of the Social Security Act 

5 (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)) is amended— 

6 (A) by striking paragraphs (81) and (82); 

7 (B) in paragraph (80), by inserting ‘‘and’’ 

8 at the end; and 

9 (C) by redesignating paragraph (83) as 

10 paragraph (81). 

11 (3) Paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 6021(d) 

12 of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 

13 1396p note) are amended to read as such para14 graphs were in effect on the day before the date of 

15 the enactment of section 8002(d) of the Patient Pro16 tection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111– 

17 148). Of the funds appropriated by paragraph (3) of 

18 such section 6021(d), as amended by the Patient 

19 Protection and Affordable Care Act, the unobligated 

20 balance is rescinded. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
# C_2020339EN.01001402.xml

| 12.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 339/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 339/14

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2020 — WH v EUIPO

(Case T-138/19) (1)

(Civil service - Public officials - 2018 promotion exercise - Decision not to promote - Action for annulment - Disregard of the procedural requirements - Articles 76 and 78(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court - Admissibility - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state reasons - Comparison of the merits)

(2020/C 339/17)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: WH (represented by: E. Fontes Vila, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė and K. Tóth, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment, first, of the decision of 18 July 2018 by which EUIPO established a definitive list of the officials promoted in the context of the 2018 promotion exercise, in that that decision did not include the name of the applicant and, second, the decision of 18 December 2018 by which the competent appointing authority rejected the complaint lodged by the applicant against that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders WH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders WH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 148, 29.4.2019.

---
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

June 23, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 135516 & (17)(18) Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 135516 COA: 281278 Oakland CC: 94-130590-FC GREGORY ALAN FERQUERON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 1, 2007 order of the Court of Appeal s is considered, and it is DE NIED, because the defendant’s motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502 (G). The motion to remand and the motion for production of records are DENIED.

p0616 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 23, 2008

Clerk
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 7775** 

JAMES CLAUDE GREER, II , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. DIRECTOR, VADOC , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Roanoke
. Glen E. Conrad , Chief District Judge. ( 7:15

- cv - 00432

- GEC

- RSB )

Submitted : October 31, 2016 Decided: November 2, 2016

Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. James Claude Greer, II, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: James Claude Greer, II, seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S .C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (A) (2012) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutio nal claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive pr ocedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently review ed the record and conclude that
Greer has not made the requisite showing. Accor dingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
D ISMISSED
UNITED STATES NAVY–MARINE CORPS

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

_________________________

No. 201700148

_________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee

v.

EDWARD W. CARULLO

Chief Navy Career Counselor (E-7), U.S. Navy

Appellant

_________________________

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: Commander Jason L. Jones, JAGC, USN.

Convening Authority: Commander, Navy Region Southeast, Naval 

Air Station, Jacksonville, FL.

Staff Judge Advocate’s Recommendation: Commander George W. 

Lucier, JAGC, USN.

For Appellant: Lieutenant Commander Paul D. Jenkins, JAGC, 

USN.

For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________

Decided 31 July 2017

_________________________

Before CAMPBELL, HUTCHISON, and SAYEGH, Appellate Military 

Judges

_________________________

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of 

error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the convening 

authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c). 

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court
# EXHIBIT 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Vascular Solutions, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), I, James Hennen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| | 1. |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | 2. |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | /s/   James Hennen                               
| | -------------------------------------------------
| | James HennenChief Financial OfficerApril 21, 2006

---
# C_2020287EN.01002701.xml

| 31.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/27

---

Appeal brought on 10 October 2019 by Jorge Minguel Rosellò against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2019 in Case T-524/19

(Case C-747/19 P)

(2020/C 287/40)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Jorge Minguel Rosellò (represented by: V. Falcucci and G. Bonavita, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: Italian Republic

By order of 29 April 2020 the Court (Sixth Chamber) held that the appeal was in part manifestly unfounded and in part manifestly ineffective.

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. 23-0330

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

CHRISTOPHER JAMES IRVINE,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including June 12, 2024, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 2 2024

05/02/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0330
Order entered November 24, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-01570-CR

JUAN MARTIN PEDROZA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F18-75239-H

ORDER

We REINSTATE this appeal. 

We abated for the trial court to clarify whether appellant, who otherwise

waived his right of appeal by entering into a plea bargain agreement with the State, 

was granted permission to appeal by the trial court. The trial court held a hearing, 

and the supplemental reporter’s and supplemental clerk’s records have been filed.

The records show the trial court allowed appellant to appeal, and an amended 
certification of appellant’s right to appeal has been filed reflecting the same. The

appeal will be submitted in due course.

We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to send a copy of this order to the 

Honorable Tina Yoo Clinton, Presiding Judge, Criminal District Court No. 1; and 

counsel for the parties.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
[No. 10343.

Department One.

August 22, 1912.]

#### Union Elevator & Warehouse Company, *Respondent,*v. Farmers’ Warehouse Company, *Appellant.*
      *1*

Warehousemen—Delivery—Breach oe Contract—Liability. A warehouseman who loads out wheat, stored under the usual form of warehouse receipt, which was “wet, mouldy and in a growing condition,” is liable in damages, where there was no acceptance at the warehouse and no evidence that it was damaged in transit.

Appeal—Review—Evidence. The credibility of the evidence sustaining a judgment will not be considered on appeal.

Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Adams county, Holcomb, J., entered December 1, 1911, upon findings in favor of the plaintiff, in an action of tort, after a trial to the court.

Affirmed.

*665
      *C. H. Spáldmg*and *J. M. Simpson,*for appellant.

*Lovell*<§■ *Davis,*for respondent.

Reported in 125 Pac. 960.

Chadwick, J.

This action was brought by respondent to recover damages, alleged to have been suffered by reason of the fact that appellant loaded’ out wheat, stored under the usual form of warehouse receipt, that was “wet, mouldy and in a growing condition” when it reached the Tacoma terminal.

Many errors are assigned but, as we view the case, it being largely a question of fact, we shall not discuss them further than to say that we find evidence to sustain the judgment. However, inasmuch as appellant earnestly contends that the effect of the judgment is to make it and other warehousemen liable to meet the tests and exactions of terminal weights and grades, we shall extend this opinion to the extent of saying that we do not so interpret the findings of the lower court. The duty of a warehouseman to turn out wheat is performed when he delivers the specific article on the cars, or, if the receipt be in such form, wheat of like kind and quality. If it had been proven that there was an acceptance at the warehouse, or that the wheat was damaged in transit, appellant might have recovered; but there is ample testimony to sustain the court’s findings that the wheat was damaged when loaded. This being so, appellant is liable for its breach of contract.

Counsel have invited us to pass upon the weight of the evidence, saying that the only evidence worthy of belief is with appellant. The judgment being sustained by the evidence, we shall not pass upon its credibility.

Judgment affirmed.

Crow, Gose, Parker, and Morris, JJ., concur.
[No. 10072.

Department One.

June 26, 1912.]

#### William Sarginson, *Appellant,*v. Turner Investment Company, Respondent.1

Mechanics’ Liens — Proceedings—Separate Houses—Segregation oe Account—Necessity. One mechanics’ lien on four houses belonging to the defendant cannot be asserted for a balance due the contractor on one entire contract for the four houses and one other house belonging to another in which the defendant had no interest, where the plaintiff did not keep separate accounts with the several buildings and cannot segregate the account against each property.

Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for King county, Tallman, J., entered May 27, 1911, upon findings in favor of the defendant, dismissing an action to foreclose a mechanics’ lien.

Affirmed.

*Bell*<§■ *McNeil (Roney*<§■ *Loveless,*of counsel), for appellant.

*Wm. Parmerlee,*for respondent.

1

 Reported in 124 Pac. 379.

Crow, J.

Action by William Sarginson against H. S. Turner Investment Company, a corporation, and others, to foreclose a single lien for labor and materials, furnished in the construction of four dwelling houses, upon lots in the city of Seattle belonging to the defendant corporation. From a judgment of dismissal, the plaintiff has appealed.

The controlling issue of fact is whether one Okey J. Gregg, with whom appellant claims a contract for the erection of the buildings, was the architect and agent of the H. S. Turner Investment Company. The trial court found that he was not, that appellant had no contract with respondent corporation, and that he is not entitled to a lien. No good purpose would be served by repeating the evidence. We have given it careful consideration, and conclude the findings of the trial court must be sustained.

*235It appears from the record that appellant, by one written instrument, contracted with Gregg for the construction of five dwelling houses, one to be built on a lot belonging to a third party in which the respondent Turner Investment Company had no interest. It further appears that appellant did not keep separate accounts with these several buildings for labor and material furnished in their construction; that, without separation or segregation, he now asserts one lien on all four houses built on the lots of the Turner Investment Company, for the sum remaining due upon the entire contract. This cannot be done, and if no other reason existed, appellant’s alleged lien would fail for the want of segregation of accounts against each property. *Knudson-Jacob Co. v. Brandt,*44 Wash. 68, 87 Pac. 43.

The judgment is affirmed.

Parker, Chadwick, and Gose, JJ., concur.