alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2005314EN.01000401.xml

| 10.12.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.12.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/4

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(2005/C 314/03)

Date of adoption of the decision:

Member State: Italy (Tuscany)

Aid No: N 61/2004

Title: Compensation for the removal and destruction of fallen stock

Objective: Compensation for the costs incurred by farmers for collecting, transporting and destroying fallen stock on agricultural holdings.

Legal basis: Proposta di legge d'iniziativa della Giunta regionale n. 7 del 19.1.2004‘Interventi a favore degli allevatori in relazione alla rimozione e alla distruzione degli animali morti in azienda’

Budget: EUR 810 000

Aid intensity or amount: For the cost of collecting and transporting fallen stock: EUR 300 per head of cattle and buffalo and EUR 65 per head of sheep and goats. In any event the compensation may not exceed 100 % of the costs actually incurred by the farmer.

For the cost of destroying the carcases of fallen stock found between 1 November 2002 and 31 December 2004: EUR 50 per head of cattle and buffalo and EUR 7 per head of sheep and goats. In any event the compensation may not exceed 100 % of the costs actually incurred by the farmer in the case of fallen stock found between 1 November 2002 and 31 December 2003 and 75 % in the case of fallen stock found between 1 January 2004 and 31 December 2004

Duration: The compensation is to be granted for fallen stock found on holdings between 1 November 2002 and 31 December 2004

Other information: Draft law n. 7 of 19 January 2004 amends an existing scheme approved by the Commission under State aid schemes N 639/2001 (Commission Decision SG(2002)198 of 31 January 2002, OJ C 58/2002) and N 739/2002 (Commission Decision C(2003)64 of 15 January 2003, OJ C 39/2003)

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgb/state_aids/

Date of adoption of the decision:

Member State: Spain

Aid No: N 163/2004

Title: Aid to repair the damage caused by torrential rain in Aragon

Objective: To repair the damage caused by torrential rain in Aragon

Legal basis: Proyecto de orden por la que se establecen ayudas para paliar los daños causados por las tormentas y lluvias torrenciales acaecidas en los meses de julio y agosto de 2003 en determinados municipios de la Comunidad Autónoma de Aragón

Budget: EUR 285 000

Aid intensity or amount: Less than the damage caused to woody plantations

Duration: Ad hoc aid

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgb/state_aids/

---
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 10449 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff

–

Appellee ,

v.
JUAN ANTONIO GUILLEN

- CHINCHILLA , Defendant

– Appellant

.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:12

- CR

- 110

- 1

Before WIENER, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Juan Antonio Guillen

- Chinchilla (Guillen) has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Guillen h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 3, 2013 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-10449 Document: 00512458435 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/03/2013No. 13

- 10449
presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion fo r leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 13-10449 Document: 00512458435 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/03/2013
Exhibit 32.1







CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 Quarterly Report of American Commerce Solutions, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended November 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Frank D. Puissegur, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) and Director 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, to my knowledge:





(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:  January 18, 2011

/s/ Frank D. PuissegurFrank D. PuissegurChief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) and Director
Exhibit 32.2

THANKSGIVING COFFEE COMPANY, INC.

CERTIFICATION 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 Quarterly Report of
Thanksgiving Coffee Company, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer
of the Company hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| | (i)  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                               
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |      |                                                                                                                                                     
| | (ii) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| | /s/ JOAN KATZEFF                      | 
| | ------------------------------------- | 
| |                                       | 
| | President and Chief Financial Officer | 
| |                                       | 
| | August 13, 2003                       |
**Exhibit 10.2**

** **

**Amendment No. 4**

**to**

# **2001 Stock Option, Deferred Stock andRestricted Stock Plan**

# ** **

1.                                       Section 3(a) ofthe Plan is amended in its entirety as follows:

 

(a)                                  AggregateShares of Stock Available. Subject to the provisions of Section 3(c) of the Plan, thetotal maximum aggregate number of shares of Stock reserved and available forissuance under the Plan shall be 1,000,000 shares; however, on January 1of each year, beginning on January 1, 2002, such maximum aggregate numberof shares of Stock shall be increased by an amount equal to the lesser of (a) 3.5%of the total number of shares of Stock outstanding on such anniversary date,and (b) a lesser amount as determined by the Board; provided, further,that of such amount the maximum aggregate number of Incentive Stock Optionsshall be increased on January 1 of each year by an amount equal to thelesser of (a) 3.5% of the total number of shares of Stock outstanding onsuch anniversary date, and (b) 3.5% of the total number of shares of Stockoutstanding on the Effective Date of the Plan. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, no Awardgranted hereunder shall become null and void or otherwise be adversely affectedsolely because of a change in the number of shares of Stock that are issued andoutstanding from time to time, provided that changes to the issued andoutstanding shares of Stock may result in adjustments to outstanding Awards inaccordance with the provisions of this Section 3.  To the extent applicable, the total number ofshares of Stock authorized to be issued under the Plan shall be subject to Section 260.140.45of Title 10 of the California Code of Regulations.

 

2.                                       The Plan isamended by adding the following as a new Section 17:

 

**Section 17.   FinancialStatements.**

 

To the extent required by Section 260.140.46of Title 10 of the California Code of Regulations, the Company shall deliverfinancial statements to all persons to whom an Award is granted pursuant to thePlan or to all persons who otherwise hold an outstanding Option or other Awardunder the Plan at least annually.  This Section 18shall not apply to key persons whose duties in connection with the Company andits Affiliates assure them access to equivalent information.

 

****

 

1

----

 

Torecord the adoption of this Amendment No. 4 to the 2001 Stock Option,Deferred Stock and Restricted Stock Plan, Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc.has caused this amendment to be executed this 28th day of April, 2009.

 
|   | IMPAC  MORTGAGE HOLDINGS, INC. |
|--------|--------------------------------|
|   |                           |   |
|   |                           |   |
|   | By:                            | /s/  Ronald M. Morrison |
|   | Title:                         | Executive  Vice President |
|   |                           |   |

 

2

----
EXHIBIT 23.01



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in each of the following Registration Statements of Caraustar Industries, Inc. and in each
related Prospectus of our report dated February 6, 2004, with respect to the financial statements of Standard Gypsum LP, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2003.



|                           |  |                                              
|-------------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------
|Registration Statement
No. |  | Purpose                                      
|No. 33-53726               |  | Registration Statement on Form S-8           
|No. 33-77682               |  | Registration Statement on Form S-8           
|No. 333-02948              |  | Registration Statement on Form S-8           
|No. 333-57965              |  | Registration Statement on Form S-8           
|No. 333-37168              |  | Registration Statement on Form S-8           
|No. 333-65555              |  | Registration Statement on Form S-3           
|No. 333-66943              |  | Post-Effective Amendment Number 1 on Form S-3
|No. 333-31618              |  | Registration Statement on Form S-4           
|No. 333-106062             |  | Registration Statement on Form S-8           
|No. 333-106064             |  | Registration Statement on Form S-8           





/s/  ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Austin, Texas

March 12, 2004
<PAGE>   1
                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT




We consent to the incorporation by reference in Post-Effective Amendment No. 1
to Registration Statement No. 33-91716 on Form S-8 to Form S-4 of Nextel
Communications, Inc., Registration Statement No. 333-06521 of Nextel
Communications, Inc. on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 333-06523 of Nextel
Communications, Inc. on Form S-8, Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration
Statement No. 333-26369 on Form S-8 to Form S-4 of Nextel Communications, Inc.,
Registration Statement No. 333-42537 of Nextel Communications, Inc. on Form S-8,
Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement No. 333-53429 of Nextel
Communications, Inc. on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 333-88971 of Nextel
Communications, Inc. on Form S-3, Registration Statement No. 333-34824 of Nextel
Communications, Inc. on Form S-3, Registration Statement No. 333-37012 on Form
S-3 and Registration Statement No. 333-1290 on Form S-4 of our report dated
February 15, 2001 (March 29, 2001 as to Note 6), appearing in this Annual Report
on Form 10-K of Nextel Communications, Inc. for the year ended December 31,
2000.




McLean, Virginia
April 2, 2001
#### In the Matter of Edward L. Fleischer, an Attorney.

Pursuant to statute, the Grievance Committee for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts is hereby authorized to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding in this court, as *619petitioner, against Edward L. Fleischer, an attorney and counselor-at-law, admitted to practice in this court on December 21,1960, under the name of Edward Leo Fleischer, based upon the disbarment order entered by the New Jersey Supreme Court on May 28, 1986, and the facts related thereto.

Robert H. Straus, Esq., Chief Counsel to the Grievance Committee for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts, 210 Joralemon St., Brooklyn, New York 11201, is hereby appointed as attorney for the petitioner in such proceeding.

The issues raised by petitioner’s notice pursuant to section 691.3 of the Rules Governing the Conduct of Attorneys [22 NYCRR 691.3], dated June 17, 1986, and the response thereto are referred to Honorable Max H. Galfunt of 216 Beach 143rd St., Neponsit, New York 11694 as Special Referee, to hear and to report with his findings upon each of the issues.

The attorney is suspended from the practice of law, pending further order of this court. Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Mangano, Thompson and Bracken, JJ., concur.
II

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1894

To amend the Alcoholic Beverage Labeling Act of 1988 to improve a warning

label requirement.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 1, 1998

Mr. THURMOND introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

A BILL

To amend the Alcoholic Beverage Labeling Act of 1988

to improve a warning label requirement.

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

3 SECTION 1. LABELING REQUIREMENT.

4 Section 204(a) of the Alcoholic Beverage Labeling

5 Act of 1988 (27 U.S.C. 215(a)) is amended by striking

6 ‘‘may cause health problems’’ and inserting ‘‘may lead to

7 alcoholism. (3) Moderate consumption of alcoholic bev8 erages may cause health problems such as hypertension

9 and breast cancer’’.

Æ
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Timothy Swinton, Appellant.

[946 NYS2d 863]

—Judgment of resentence, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard D. Carruthers, J.), rendered March 27, 2009, resentencing defendant to concurrent terms of nine years, to be followed by five years’ postrelease supervision, unanimously affirmed. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered on or about April 21, 2010, which denied defendant’s CEL 440.20 motion to set aside the resentence, unanimously dismissed as academic.

The resentencing proceeding imposing a term of postrelease supervision was neither barred by double jeopardy nor otherwise unlawful *(see People v Lingle,*16 NY3d 621 [2011]). Defendant was resentenced prior to the maximum expiration date of his single aggregated sentence *(see People v Wilson,*92 AD3d 512 [2012]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the term of postrelease supervision. Concur — Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Renwick, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Pest Management Research: Sidney, MT
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    NPARL
                        Northern Plains Agricultural Research Laboratory
                                    Agricultural Systems Research Unit
                                    Grasshoppers: Their Biology, Identification and ManagementSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area Sidney, Montana Northern Plains Agricultural Research Laboratory Pest Management Research PMRU Docs Grasshoppers: Their Biology, Identification and Management: Outbreak and Survey Info





- NPARL Home
- PMRU Home
- ASRU Home
- Site Highlights
- Outbreak and Survey Info
- ID Tools | Apps
- Grasshopper Management
- IPM Handbook
- USDA Research | Contact Info

Outbreak Info: 2023 Rangeland Hazard Mapheadline bar /ARSUserFiles/30320505/grasshopper/Extras/images/Maps/2023 GH hazard map with cricket.jpg Return to Outbreak Info


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Robert Clyde RAINS, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 06-10207.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 16, 2007.*

Filed April 20, 2007.

Beverly Wee Sameshima, Office of the U.S. Attorney Pjkk Federal Building, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

*774Shawn A. Luiz, Esq., Law Offices, Honolulu, HI, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Robert Clyde Rains appeals from the district court’s judgment imposing a 216-month sentence for possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Rains contends that his counsel during the proceedings in the district court was constitutionally ineffective. Because the record is insufficiently developed, we decline to consider this claim on direct appeal. *See United States v. Reyes-Platero,*224 F.3d 1112, 1116 (9th Cir.2000) (holding that sufficiently developed record is exception to general rule that ineffective assistance of counsel arguments are ordinarily inappropriate for direct review and should be brought in habeas corpus proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255).

AFFIRMED.

**

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

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

January 24, 1896.)

Action by the people against Dennis Mullins.

No opinion. Motion denied.
Sherwood J. Reese 

Sherwood. reese@comcast.net 

Drew L. Johnson, P.C. 

sherwoodreese@comcast.net 

1700 Valley River Drive 

Eugene, OR 97 401 

( 541) 434-6466 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

UNITED STATES COURT DISTRICT COURT 

DANIEL A. LARSELL, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Commissioner of Social Security 

Administration, 

Defendant. 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

Civil No. 6:15-cv-01665-BR 

ORDER FOR ATTORNEY FEES 

PURSUANT TO EAJA 

After considering the Stipulated Motion of the parties submitted herein, Order hereby 

grants that Commissioner shall pay the sum of $5751.00 in attorney fees and expenses of $20.88 

(Service), for a total of $5771.88, upon verification that Plaintiff has no debt to the government 

which qualifies for offset against the awarded fees, pursuant to the reasoning in Astrue v. Ratliff, 

560 U.S. 586, 130 S. Ct. 2521, 2527 (2010) (EAJA awards fees subj eel "to a federal 

administrative offset if the Litigant has outstanding federal debts'') for full settlement of all 

1 -ORDER FOR ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO EAJA 

Case 6:15-cv-01665-BR Document 17 Filed 12/22/16 Page 1 of 2
claims for fees under EAJA. Costs for court filing-fees shall be a\Narda:l to Plaintiff attorney in 

the sum of $400.00 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1920. 

If Plaintiff has no outstanding fa:leral debt, payment of $5751.00 in attorney fees, $20.88 

in costs plus $400.00 reimbursement of Court filing-fees shall be made to Plaintiff's attorney and 

maila:l to his office at 1700 Valley River Drive, Eugene, OR 97401. If Plaintiff has such debt, 

the check for any remaining funds after offset shall be made out to Plaintiff and maila:l to 

counsel's office at the address provida:l above. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this day of December).~016 

PRESENTED BY: 

By: /s/ SHERWOOD J. REESE 

Sherwood J. Reese, OSB #144130 

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff 

U.&D~ 

2- ORDER FOR ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO EAJA 

Case 6:15-cv-01665-BR Document 17 Filed 12/22/16 Page 2 of 2
#### DOMINICK COMPLITANO, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v. STEEL & ALLOY TANK CO., RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

Argued March 7, 1961

Decided March 20, 1961.

*Mr. Louis C. Jacobson*argued the cause for the appellant.

*Mr. Isidor Kalisch*argued the cause for the respondent.

*301Per Curiam.

The judgment is reversed for the reasons expressed in the dissenting opinion of Judge Conford in the Appellate Division.

Hall and Haneman, JJ., vote to affirm the judgment for the reasons expressed in the majority opinion of judge Foley.

*For*reversal—Chief Justice Weintraub, and Justices Jacobs, Francis, Proctor and Schettino—5.

*For*affirmance—Justices Hall and *Haneman—2.*