alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010335EN.01000501.xml

| 11.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 335/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 335/5

---

Notice concerning undertakings offered in connection with the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy proceedings concerning imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) originating, inter alia, in India: change of the name of a company

2010/C 335/05

The undertakings offered in the framework of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate (PET) originating in, inter alia, India and in the framework of an anti-subsidy proceeding concerning imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate (PET) originating in, inter alia, India were accepted by Commission Decision 2000/745/EC (1) as amended by Decision 2005/697/EC (2).

1

2

South Asian Petrochem Limited, a company located in India, whose undertaking was accepted by Decision 2005/697/EC, has informed the Commission that on 5 of January 2010, as a result of a merger with Dhunseri Tea and Industries Ltd, its name changed to Dhunseri Petrochem & Tea Limited. The merger was approved on 2 of July 2010 by the local court.

The company has argued that the change of name does not affect the right of the company to benefit from the terms of the undertaking accepted under its previous name of South Asian Petrochem Limited.

The Commission has examined the information provided and has concluded that the change of name in no way affects the findings of Decision 2000/745/EC as amended by Decision 2005/697/EC. Therefore, the reference, in Article 1 of Decision 2000/745/EC, as amended by Decision 2005/697/EC to:

South Asian Petrochem Limited

should be read as:

Dhunseri Petrochem & Tea Limited

The TARIC additional code A585 previously attributed to South Asian Petrochem Limited shall apply to Dhunseri Petrochem & Tea Limited.

---

(1)  OJ L 301, 30.11.2000, p. 88.

1

(2)  OJ L 266, 11.10.2005, p. 62.

2

---
EXHIBIT 21.1

                  SUBSIDIARIES OF WINSLOEW FURNITURE, INC.



		                                     State or Other Jurisdiction
                      Name                  of Incorporation or organization
         	===================================================================


1.      Winston Furniture Company of Alabama                 Alabama

2.      Loewenstein, Inc.                                    Florida

3.      Texacraft, Inc.                                        Texas

4.      Tropic Craft, Inc.                                   Florida

5.      Winston Properties, Inc.                             Alabama

6.      Pompeii Furniture Co., Inc.                            Miami

7.     Industrial Mueblera Pompeii de Mexico,
         S.A. de C.V.                                    Mexico, D.F.
H. Res. 1020 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

January 27, 2010. 

Whereas, on January 26, 1915, President Woodrow Wilson 

signed the Rocky Mountain National Park Act to establish Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP) in the State 

of Colorado; 

Whereas, years ago, the foresight of so many Coloradans to 

set aside and conserve RMNP benefits so many of us 

today; 

Whereas, the fragile alpine tundra encompasses one-third of 

RMNP and is one of the largest examples of alpine tundra ecosystems preserved in the National Park System in 

the lower 48 States; 

Whereas, RMNP remains a place for visitors to enjoy the 

Rocky Mountain West by hiking, backpacking, climbing, 

biking, picnicking, wildlife viewing, snowshoeing, crosscountry skiing, and horseback riding; 

Whereas, the National Park Service provides unique outdoor 

educational opportunities within RMNP and teaches visitors about the diverse park ecosystem, environmental 

stewardship, wilderness areas, and the principles of Leave 

No Trace so our recreational areas can be enjoyed by everyone; 
2 

•HRES 1020 EH 

Whereas, RMNP is the highest national park in the United 

States with at least 60 mountains higher than 12,000 

feet including the highest summit, Longs Peak, at 14,259 

feet; 

Whereas, the Continental Divide runs through RMNP and 

the park contains the headwaters of several river systems 

including the Colorado River; 

Whereas, RMNP is consistently one of the top 10 visited national parks in the United States with approximately 3 

million visitors every year; 

Whereas, on March 30, 2009, 249,339 acres of RMNP’s total 

265,770 acres was designated as Wilderness Area, thereby conferring the highest level of conservation protection 

for Federal lands to protect the park’s majestic terrain 

from future development; and 

Whereas this designation marks the culmination of decades 

of work by many committed stakeholders, from the local 

communities to the Federal Government: Now, therefore, 

be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives honors the 

95th anniversary of the signing of the Rocky Mountain National Park Act and commends the National Park Service 

and so many Coloradans for their dedication to preserving 

this region of the Southern Rocky Mountains for future generations to come. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
---

|EXHIBIT 32.1                               
|-------------------------------------------
|                                           
|                                           
|CERTIFICATION                              
|PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350         
|AND RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b)       
|OF THE U.S. SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

In connection with the annual report of Viscount Systems, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2008 (the
"Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated
below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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.

|Dated: March 31, 2008 | /s/
      Stephen Pineau                                         
|--------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------------------
|                      | Stephen Pineau                                                   
|                      | Principal Executive Officer and Principal
      Financial Officer

---
! "!#$%&$#'!#(&)*(#"  +(#&"!##,"!# &	"-.#!$%/000000000000000000000000000

&+$!1$#!0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000  2%!+$($ 3	 2 3	 34%$(!#5!%,$%%6"7 2%!+3$#-''8""8,,/000000000002%!+3(&.#!

4	292:;94 4%$(!#!%,$%%6".&*'((!7

&+$!1$#!*%($!"*%<'!"'!#(

=>?@ABACD@AEF     GHIJKLDM

NOO?EPDQ     GHIJRLDM

SE@ABACD@AEF     GHIJKLTM

NTPDFC>SE@AC>EBUVW=XYZQ>=[DF\>  GHIJ]ILDM

UVW=X^_>?\>FC`YZQ>=[DF\>   GHIJ]IL[M

 *%*'&(00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000  

64&"*#4%$(!#!%,.&"*#.&*'((!7

=>?@ABACD@AEF     GHIJaLDM

=>?@ABACD@AEFU>CZ?A@`bZ@Z?>c   GH]JadLDM

=>?@ABACD@AEFUeDO=QDccGHIJaLTM

NOO?EPDQ     GHIJdLDM

NOO?EPDQU>CZ?A@`bZ@Z?>cGH]JadLfM

SEP>QW>?APD@AP>g?ETZC@SE@ABACD@AEF  GHIJ]aLDM

UeDOUZf_AccAEFGdhJR

  $%4&"*#$'i0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 

4&"*#&'($!"	!"#!(-.&"*#&%$#"*%($!"*%<'!"'!#(/

=>?@ABACD@AEF     GHIJKLDM

=>?@ABACD@AEFjDT>NPDAQDfQ>@Ek?DT>W>@>?_AFD@AEF GHIJKLDM

=>?@ABACD@AEFU>CZ?A@`bZ@Z?>c   GH]JaHLDM

W>QAc@AF\LSEXO>FVF@>?>c@M   GHIJKLDM

NOO?EPDQ     GHIJRLDM

NOO?EPDQjDT>NPDAQDfQ>@Ek?DT>W>@>?_AFD@AEF GHIJRLDM

NOO?EPDQU>CZ?A@`bZ@Z?>cGH]JaHLfM

NOO?EPDQN_>FT_>F@c@E>FZ_>?D@>TD\?ACZQ@Z?DQO?ETZC@cGHIJHLDMlGHIJRLDM

mSEFnjD@>?ADQN\?ACZQ@Z?DQYZQ>=[DF\>oGHIJHLfMLRM

SE@ABACD@AEF     GHIJKLTM

  $%$'-(/ 4&"*#-(/< #"i000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

*%*'&(0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

pqrstuvwsxyqz{{|

}

~qrv|qrvsx



}

tttrpss|xrsv
#### Juanita STEELE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cecelia HERNANDEZ, and Marvin Melvin Hilpert, aka Moon, Defendants-Appellants, and Marsha Tolen, Defendant.

Nos. 08-17211, 08-17219.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 5, 2010.*

Filed April 21, 2010.

Jack Duran, Duran Law Office, Rose-ville, CA, Michael A. Robinson, Esquire, Fredericks Peebles & Morgan LLP, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Cecelia Hernandez Greenville, CA, pro se.

Marsha Tolen, Greenville, CA, pro se.

Marvin Melvin Hilpert, Greenville, CA, pro se.

Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

**The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

In these consolidated appeals, Cecelia Hernandez and Marvin Hilpert appeal pro *617se from final orders of the district court in Juanita Steele’s action seeking to eject them from restricted Indian lands. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

In No. 08-17211, to the extent Hernandez challenges the validity of the settlement agreement she entered with Steele, we lack jurisdiction to consider those challenges because Hernandez failed to file a timely appeal from the judgment approving the settlement. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 4 (setting forth the time for appeal); *Stephanie-Cardona LLC v. Smith’s Food & Drug Ctrs., Inc.,*476 F.3d 701, 703 (9th Cir.2007) (“A timely notice of appeal is a non-waiva-ble jurisdictional requirement.”). The district court did not err by enforcing the judgment because Hernandez had failed to comply with it.

In No. 08-17219, the district court properly granted summary adjudication because, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Hilpert, there are no genuine issues of material fact regarding his interest in the land. *See Fontana v. Haskin,*262 F.3d 871, 876 (9th Cir.2001) (reviewing de novo a grant of summary adjudication and stating that summary adjudication is proper where there are no genuine issues of material fact). Hilpert’s contention that the court granted summary adjudication without proper notice and an opportunity to be heard lacks merit.

Contrary to Hilpert’s contention, the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over this action. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1331 (“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”); *United States v. Milner,*583 F.3d 1174, 1182 (9th Cir.2009) (“Federal common law governs an action for trespass on Indian lands.”). Further, Steele had standing to bring this action based on her interest in the land. *See Agua Caliente Band of Mission Indians v. County of Riverside,*442 F.2d 1184, 1186 (9th Cir.1971) (“An Indian, as the beneficial owner of lands held by the United States in trust has a right acting independently of the United States to sue to protect his property interests.”).

Hilpert’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

No. 08-17211: AFFIRMED.

No. 08-17219: AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid*617ed by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 23.1



Deloitte





Report of Independent Registered Chartered Accountants



To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of

Stellar Pharmaceuticals Inc.



We have audited the accompanying balance sheet of Stellar Pharmaceuticals Inc. (the Company) as at December 31, 2007, and the related statements of operations and comprehensive loss, shareholders equity, and cash flows for the year then ended.  These financial statements are the responsibility of the Companys management.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit.



We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States).  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement.  The Company is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting.  Our audit included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Companys internal control over financial reporting.  Accordingly, we express no such opinion.  An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.  We believe that our audit provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.



In our opinion, these financial statements, present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Company as at December 31, 2007, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the year then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.



The financial statements as at December 31, 2006 and for the year then ended were audited by Mintz & Partners LLP who expressed an opinion without reservation on those statements in their report dated March 26, 2007.





/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP



Independent Registered Chartered Accountants

Licensed Public Accountants

Toronto, Canada

March 30, 2008
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          19,315
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,814
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (506)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                34,526
<PP&E>                                          10,417
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (5,847)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  40,598
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,394
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            25
<OTHER-SE>                                      25,179
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    40,598
<SALES>                                         11,096
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,096
<CGS>                                            2,348
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,348
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,066
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,088)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (407)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (681)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (681)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.07)


</TABLE>
# CE2011004EN.01006601.xml

| 7.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 4/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 4/66

---

Thursday 25 March 2010Appointment of a member of the Court of Auditors – Ms Rasa Budbergyté

P7_TA(2010)0075

European Parliament decision of 25 March 2010 on the nomination of Rasa Budbergyté as a Member of the Court of Auditors (C7-0018/2010 – 2010/0806(NLE))

2011/C 4 E/14

(Consultation)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

having regard to Article 286(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C7-0018/2010),

having regard to the fact that, at its meeting of 15 March 2010, the Committee on Budgetary Control heard the Council’s nominee for membership of the Court of Auditors,

having regard to Rule 108 of its Rules of Procedure,

having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A7-0039/2010),

| A. | whereas Rasa Budbergyté fulfils the conditions laid down in Article 286(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, |
| --- | --- |

A.

whereas Rasa Budbergyté fulfils the conditions laid down in Article 286(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU,

| 1. | Delivers a favourable opinion on the nomination of Rasa Budbergyté as a Member of the Court of Auditors; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Delivers a favourable opinion on the nomination of Rasa Budbergyté as a Member of the Court of Auditors;

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and, for information, the Court of Auditors, the other institutions of the European Union and the audit institutions of the Member States. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and, for information, the Court of Auditors, the other institutions of the European Union and the audit institutions of the Member States.

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jaime Antonio RIVAS, also known as Miguel Angel Santos, also known as Basil Ray Roquemore, also known as Michael Lee Cameron, also known as Elloy Carrillo, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-20318

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 4, 2010.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Nancy C. Harrison, Nancy Harrison & Associates, Houston, TX, for Defendant Appellant.

Before JOLLY, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

*361PER CURIAM: *

Defendant-Appellant Jaime Antonio Rivas appeals the 57-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry after his deportation subsequent to committing an aggravated felony. Rivas contends that his sentence violates the Eighth Amendment because it is cruel and unusual and grossly disproportionate to his offense in light of the age of his prior conviction and his law-abiding behavior since his return to the United States. As Rivas did not object to his sentence on Eighth Amendment grounds, we review it for plain error. *See United States v. Martinez,*496 F.3d 387, 389 (5th Cir.2007). Rivas has not established that his 57-month sentence, within the applicable guidelines range, was disproportionately harsh. *See Rummel v. Estelle,*445 U.S. 263, 284-85, 100 S.Ct. 1133, 63 L.Ed.2d 382 (1980); *United States v. Cardenas-Alvarez,*987 F.2d 1129, 1134 (5th Cir.1993).

Rivas also contends that his sentence violates the Equal Protection Clause because his high total offense level results in the same sentence as those imposed on individuals with higher criminal history categories and because the sentence he received is no longer than those imposed on individuals who illegally reenter the United States, but do not have prior aggravated felonies. Again, our review is for plain error. *See Martinez,*496 F.3d at 389. Rivas has not established that “other persons similarly situated as is the claimant unfairly enjoy benefits that he does not or escape burdens to which he is subjected.” *United States v. Cronn,*717 F.2d 164, 169 (5th Cir.1983); *see also Cardenas-Alvarez,*987 F.2d at 1134. The sentence imposed by the district court is thus AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5tii Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of CorMedix Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, John C. Houghton, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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, as amended;
  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:
      November 8, 2010
              By:
              /s/
      John C. HoughtonName:
              John
      C. HoughtonTitle:
              President
      and Chief Executive Officer
                (Principal
      Executive Officer)
#### Jesus Concepcion Arambula LARA; Cruz Olivia Arambula Martinez, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

Nos. 05-75293, 06-72302.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 26, 2008.*

Filed Sept. 5, 2008.

Allison Mosher, Esquire, Hecht & Smith, LLP, Portland, OR, for Petitioners.

CAC-Distriet Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Douglas E. Ginsburg, Esquire, Lyle Davis Jentzer, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

*553Before: SCHROEDER, KLEINFELD, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Jesus Concepcion Arambula Lara and Cruz Olivia Arambula Martinez, married natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of two Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) orders: a 2006 order denying then- motion to reopen removal proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel, and a 2005 order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and review de novo due process claims. *Lin v. Ashcroft,*377 F.3d 1014, 1023 (9th Cir.2004). We deny the petitions for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to reopen because petitioners have not established prejudice from their prior counsel’s performance. *See id.*at 1024 (challenges based on ineffective assistance of counsel require showing of prejudice). Petitioners’ motion does not include evidence describing or documenting whether their daughter has existing or future medical needs. Evidence of their daughter’s past surgery and the general assertion in Arambula Martinez’s affidavit that the child requires “specialized treatments” in the United States are not sufficient to establish that counsel’s failure to raise the daughter’s condition may have affected the outcome of proceedings. *See Ortiz v. INS,*179 F.3d 1148, 1153 (9th Cir.1999).

Petitioners have not raised, and have therefore waived, any direct challenge to the BIA’s 2005 order. *See Martinez-Serrano v. INS,*94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996).

PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

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