alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010147EN.01002101.xml

| 5.6.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 147/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.6.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 147/21

---

Commission notice concerning the quantity not applied for to be added to the quantity fixed for the subperiod 1 October 2010 to 31 December 2010 under certain quotas opened by the Community for products in the poultrymeat sector

2010/C 147/07

Commission Regulation (EC) No 616/2007 (1) opened tariff quotas for imports of products in the poultrymeat sector. The applications for import licences lodged during the first seven days of April 2010 for the subperiod 1 July to 30 September 2010 do not, for quotas 09.4212, 09.4214, 09.4217 and 09.4218, cover the quantities available. Pursuant to the second sentence of Article 7(4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 (2), the quantities that were not applied for are to be added to the quantity fixed for the following quota subperiod, from 1 October to 31 December 2010; they are set out in the Annex to this notice.

1

2

---

(1)  OJ L 142, 5.6.2007, p. 3.

1

(2)  OJ L 238, 1.9.2006, p. 13.

2

---

ANNEX

| Quota order number | Quantities not applied for, to be added to the quantity fixed for the subperiod 1 October 2010 to 31 December 2010
  (in kg) |
| --- | --- |
| 09.4212 | 27 783 000 |
| 09.4214 | 2 658 100 |
| 09.4217 | 7 690 000 |
| 09.4218 | 3 478 800 |

Quota order number

Quantities not applied for, to be added to the quantity fixed for the subperiod 1 October 2010 to 31 December 2010

(in kg)

09.4212

27 783 000

09.4214

2 658 100

09.4217

7 690 000

09.4218

3 478 800

---
Número Identificador

SEN 20 2 3

_______________

Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico TRIBUNAL DE APELACIONES

PANEL X I HON. O ́BRIAN VÁZQUEZ MOLINA MUNICIPIO DE GUAYAMA

Recurrente

v.

DEPARTAMENTO DE LA FAMILIA

Recurrid o KL RA202300635 Revisión Administrativa procedente de la Junta Adjudicativa del Departamento de la Familia

Apelación N úm.: 2017 PCHC0012A

Sobre: Factura al Cobro Oficina: ACUDEN Panel integrado por su president a , la Juez Brignoni Mártir , el Juez Candelaria Rosa , la Jueza Álvarez Esnard y la Jueza Díaz Rivera

. Candelaria Rosa, Juez Ponente

SENTENCIA
En San Juan, Puerto Rico, a 12 de diciembre de 20 2 3

. Sabido es que la revisión judicial nos permite asegurar que los organismos administrativos actúen de acuerdo con las facultades que legalmente les fueron concedidas. Comisión Ciudadanos v. G.P. Real Property , 173 DPR 998 (2008). Sin embargo, el foro apelat ivo solo puede ejercer su autoridad cuando las resoluciones, órdenes o sentencias de una agencia u organismo administrativo son finales. Art. 4.006 de la Ley de la Judicatura de 2003 (4 LPRA sec. 24y). Véase, también, Sec. 4.3 de la Ley de Procedimiento Ad ministrativo Uniforme (LPAU) (3 LPRA sec. 9673); Moreno Ferrer v. Jta. Reglamentadora

del Cannabis Medicinal , 209 DPR 430 (2022). En efecto, un recurso
administrativo en contra de una decisión interlocutoria es prematuro, por lo que priva a este foro apelativo de jurisdicción. Yumac Home Furniture, Inc. v. Caguas Lumber Yard, Inc. , 194 DPR 96 (2015). AnteKL RA202300635 2

dicho escenario, el Reglamento del Tribunal de Apelaciones contempla la desestimación de un recurso por carecer de jurisdicción para

atenderlo en sus méritos. Regla 83 (2) del Tribunal de Apelaciones (4 LPRA Ap. XXII

- B). No obstante, la desestimación de un recurso prematuro no prohíbe en absoluto que el recurrente vuelva a presentarlo, una vez el foro apelado resuelv a la controversia ante su

consideración. Yumac Home Furniture, Inc. v. Caguas Lumber Yard,

Inc. , supra
. En el presente caso, el recurrente acudió ante este Tribunal prematuramente. Como claramente expresado por el recurrente en su
solicitud , este compareció vía revisión administrativa para que revoquemos una resolución interlocutoria de la Junta Adjudicativa del Departamento de la Familia, en lugar de una final como dispuesto en ley. Indudablemente, acoger la petición del recurrente cuando l a Junta Adjudicativa todavía no ha evaluado la controversia en sus méritos y

dictaminado su decisión fin al y fundamentada resulta inoportuno

. Por los fundamentos expuestos, desestimamos el recurso presentado por falta de jurisdicción. En consecuencia, se deniega

también la Solicitud urgente de orden provisional en auxilio de jurisdicción pendiente. Notifíquese de inmediato a todas las partes

. Lo acordó y manda el Tribunal y lo certifica la Secretaria del Tribunal de Apelaciones. La Juez Brignoni Mártir concurre sin escrito.

L c da

. Lilia M. Oquendo Sol í s Secreta ria del Tribunal de Apelaciones
---

Exhibit 32.2

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 Asia Atlantic
Resources (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended January 31, 2008
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), 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.

|Date: March 14, 2008                            | 
|----------------------------------------------- | 
|                                                | 
|                                                | 
|/s/ Christopher Murphy                          | 
|Christopher Murphy, Principal Financial Officer | 



---
#### Cesar Giovanni Mejia RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-72640.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 26, *2008.****

Filed Sept. 8, 2008.

*578Rosaura del Carmen Rodriguez, Rios Cantor, P.S., Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.

Richard M. Evans, Esquire, Nancy Ellen Friedman, Andrew Jacob Oliveira, Esquire, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, WWS-District Counsel, Esquire, Immigration and Naturalization Service Office of thq District Counsel, Seattle, WA, for Respondent.

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

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Cesar Giovanni Mejia Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual findings for substantial evidence, *Ghaly v. INS,*58 F.3d 1425, 1429 (9th Cir.1995), and deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Mejia Rodriguez was ineligible for asylum because he has not shown -that the incidents that occurred were done by the government or forces the government was unable or unwilling to control. *See Castro-Perez v. Gonzales,*409 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir.2005). Accordingly, Mejia Rodriguez failed to establish eligibility for asylum.

Because Mejia Rodriguez cannot meet his burden to demonstrate eligibility for asylum, he necessarily fails to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. *See Ghaly,*58 F.3d at 1429.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
```

[Federal Register: June 2, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 107)]
[Notices]
[Page 35331]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr02jn00-44]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m., Tuesday, June 27, 2000.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, Lobby Level Hearing Room.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Public Hearing on Regulatory Framework/
Trading Facilities.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 00-14033 Filed 5-31-00; 3:47 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

----

**======== RETURN TO INDEX    ========**

----
EXHIBIT 32.1





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 NO SHOW, INC. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended January 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Raniero Corsini, Chief Executive and 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.














/s/ RANIERO CORSINIRaniero CorsiniChief Executive and Chief Financial OfficerDecember 12th, 2011
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF 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 Centaurus Resources Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending November 30, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Robert C. Weaver, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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 result of operations of
          the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
28th day December, 2007.


/s/ Robert C. Weaver, Jr.
------------------------------
Robert C. Weaver, Jr.
Chief Executive Officer
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  In connection with the Quarterly Report of PRTX, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dr. S. Craig Barton, Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:  1. The Report fully complies with 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 result of operations of the Company.  /s/ Dr. S. Craig Barton Dr. S. Craig Barton Title: President and Chief Financial Officer   March 18, 2009
#### In the Matter of Chanika B., an Infant. Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent. Marlon V.B., Appellant.

[874 NYS2d 251]—

In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Tally, J.), dated June 4, 2008, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated December 18, 2007, made after a hearing, finding that he had neglected the subject child, and after a dispositional hearing, inter alia, placed the child in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services of Queens County. The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order dated December 18, 2007.

Ordered that the order of disposition is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the fact-finding order is modified accordingly, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed.

A “neglected child” is defined as one whose “physical, mental or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired as a result of the failure of his parent or other person legally responsible for his care to exercise *672a minimum degree of care ... in providing the child with proper supervision or guardianship, by unreasonably inflicting or allowing to be inflicted harm, or a substantial risk thereof, including the infliction of excessive corporal punishment” (Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]).

As the father correctly contends, the Family Court’s finding of neglect was not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The evidence presented at the fact-finding hearing established that the father slapped the child in the face, causing her nose to bleed, because she had disobeyed him. The child testified that her father never hit her at any other time and never hit her brother. While a single incident may suffice to sustain a finding of neglect *(see Matter of Sheneika V.,*20 AD3d 541 [2005]), the record here does not support such a finding *(see Matter of Reannie D.,*2 AD 3d 851 [2003]; *Matter of Suffolk County Dept. of Social Servs. v Diane J.,*222 AD2d 439 [1995]; *Matter of Rodney C.,*91 Misc 2d 677, 679 [1977]; *cf. Matter of Joseph O.,*28 AD3d 562 [2006]; *Matter of Jason T.,*2 AD3d 738, 739 [2003]). Accordingly, the Family Court should have denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. Fisher, J.P., Angiolillo, Balkin and Belen, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit
        32.1**
 
 **Certification
        of Principal Executive Officer****and Principal Financial Officer**
 **Pursuant
        to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to**
 **Section
        906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**
 
 In
        connection with the Quarterly Report of Wentworth VIII, Inc. (the "Company")
        on
        Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities
        and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kevin R. Keating,
        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.
 
 /s/
                Kevin R. KeatingKevin
                  R. Keating
                Principal
                  Executive Officer
                Principal
                  Financial Officer
                November
                  12, 2008
```

[Federal Register: May 17, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 95)]
[Notices]
[Page 27896]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr17my04-45]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

Agency Holding the Meeting:  Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Time and Date: 11 a.m., Friday, June 11, 2004.

Place: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, Room 1012.

Status: Closed.

Matter to be Considered:
    Surveillance Matters.

Contact Person For More Information:  Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 04-11186 Filed 5-13-04; 10:39 am]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```
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*
 
 I, John
Holcomb, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q of Bonanza One, Inc. for the quarter ended September 30, 2009
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of Bonanza One, Inc.
 
 Date:
      November 12, 2009
                  By:
                  /s/John
      HolcombName:
                  John
      HolcombTitle
                  President.
      Principal Executive Officer
                    and
      Principal Financial
Officer
 
 * The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
document.
No. 447.

#### Hanson *v.*Kramer et al.

Jurisdictional statement submitted November 23, 1931.

Decided November 30, 1931.

*Mr. John F. Hanson, pro se.*No appearance for appellees.

*Per Curiam:*

The motion for leave to proceed further herein *in forma pauperis*is denied. The appeal is dismissed for the want of a substantial federal question. *Equitable Life Assurance Society*v. *Brown,*187 U. S. 308, 311; *Campbell*v. *Olney,*262 U. S. 352, 354; *Tidal Oil Co.*v. *Flanagan,*263 U. S. 444, 455, 456; *Wick*v. *Chelan Electric Co.,*280 U. S. 108, 111.
Exhibit 32.2




CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Urban Barns Foods Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending January 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Daniel Meikelham, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
adopted pursuant to §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 result of operations of the Company.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the 31st day of March, 2010.





/s/  Daniel Meikelham


Chief Financial Officer, Principal Accounting Officer
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE  OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER****PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

The undersigned, Greg Jarman, the Principal Executive  Officer of Omnicity Corp., and Don Prest, the Principal Financial Officer of Omnicity  Corp., each 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, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Omnicity Corp. for the  quarterly period ended October 31, 2010, fully complies with the requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,  and that the information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly  presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of  operations of Omnicity Corp. 

Date: December  15, 2010

 */s/ Greg Jarman      *  Greg Jarman  Chief Executive Officer and a Director   (Principal Executive Officer) 

 */s/ Don Prest         *  Don Prest  Chief Financial Officer and a Director   (Principal Financial Officer) 

A signed original of this written statement required  by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise  adopting the signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version  of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Omnicity  Corp. and will be retained by Omnicity Corp. and furnished to the Securities  and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----
#### Anthony LEWIS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. ROBASCOITTI; et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 11-15288.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.*

Filed Jan. 9, 2012.

Anthony Lewis, Ely, NV, pro se.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Anthony Lewis, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). *Barren v. Harrington,*152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Lewis’s action because Lewis failed to allege facts showing that defendants deprived him of any constitutional right. *See Long v. County of Los Angeles,*442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir.2006) (“To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege ... that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated[.]”); *see also Farmer v. Brennan,*511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (“[D]eliberate indifference” is evidenced only when “the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety[.]”); *Rhodes v. Robinson,*408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir.2005) (setting forth elements of a First Amendment retaliation claim); *Oltarzewski v. Ruggiero,*830 F.2d 136, 139 (9th Cir.1987) (“Verbal harassment or abuse ... is not sufficient to state a constitutional deprivation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” (citation, internal quotation marks, and brackets omitted)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend because it is clear from the face of the complaint that the deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. *See Cato v. United States,*70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir.1995). Lewis’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

**

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