alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
----

            DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE         

No 48/2004

of 23 April 2004         

amending Annex XX (Environment) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’, and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following shall be added in point 21ac (Directive 1999/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council) of Annex XX to the Agreement:

                  ‘, as amended by:

Article 2

The texts of Directive 2003/73/EC in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 24 April 2004, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 23 April 2004.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

P. WESTERLUND            

----

(1)OJ L 41, 12.2.2004, p. 58.

(2)OJ L 186, 25.7.2003, p. 34.

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

----
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 22-11033

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Aaron Oehlschlager, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:20-CR-378-1

______________________________

Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The attorney appointed to represent Aaron Oehlschlager 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). Oehlschlager has not filed a response to the brief but has moved 

for the appointment of new counsel. That motion is DENIED. See Fifth 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 9, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-11033 Document: 00516781316 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/09/2023
No. 22-11033

2

Circuit Plan Under the Criminal Justice Act § 5(B); see also 

United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the 

record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the 

appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, 

counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused 

from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See

5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Case: 22-11033 Document: 00516781316 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/09/2023
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. §1350 (adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002),
I, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of ATC Technology Corporation (the
"Company"), hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge the Annual Report on
Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2009 (the "Report")
fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.





Date:  February
25, 2010








/s/
      John M. PinkertonJohn
      M. Pinkerton, Chief Financial
Officer




This
certification will not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the
Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that
section.  This certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except
to the extent that the registrant specifically incorporates it by
reference.
```

[Federal Register: December 15, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 240)]
[Notices]
[Page 69060]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15de98-41]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m., Monday, January 11, 1999.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., N.W., Washington, D.C., 9th Floor Conference
Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Adjudicatory Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 98-33267 Filed 12-11-98; 11:27am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

----

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

----
William Columbus HORHN, petitioner, v. TEXAS.

No. 16-269.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, First District denied.
```

[Federal Register: December 11, 1997 (Volume 62, Number 238)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 65203]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr11de97-6]


[[Page 65203]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 15


Changes in Reporting Levels for Large Trader Reports

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

ACTION: Final rulemaking; correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures Trading Commission is correcting an
error in reports by large traders previously published in the Federal
Register on November 17, 1997 (62 FR 61226).

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 17, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lamont L. Reese, Division of Economic Analysis, Commodity Futures
Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20581, (202) 418-5310.

Correction

    In the final rule, FR Doc. No. 97-29995, beginning on page 61226 in
the Federal Register issue of November 17, 1997, make the following
correction:


Sec. 15.03  [Corrected]

    On page 61227, in the third column, in Sec. 15.03, in the table, in
the column entitled ``Quantity,'' the fourth line reflecting the
quantity 500,000 for the commodity of oats (bushels), should be deleted
and replaced with the quantity 300,000.

    Dated: December 8, 1997.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 97-32412 Filed 12-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

----

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

----
Rutha CARROLL, Individually and as Heir of Herman Rochan Carroll, Deceased, et al., petitioners, v. George W. ELLINGTON, et al.

No. 16-128.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Clark WILLES, petitioner, v. LINN COUNTY, OREGON, et al.

No. 16-429.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 14, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A23A0108. STEVE PITTMAN et al. v. BORIS WOODARD.

This case began as a dispossessory proceeding in magistrate court. After the

magistrate court entered final judgment in favor of Boris Woodard, Steve Pittman

appealed to the state court. The state court granted a writ of possession to Woodard.

Pittman then filed a notice of direct appeal to this Court. We, however, lack

jurisdiction. 

An appeal from a state court order disposing of a de novo appeal from a

magistrate court decision must be initiated by filing an application for discretionary

appeal. OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (11); Strachan v. Meritor Mtg. Corp. East, 216 Ga. App.

82, 82 (453 SE2d 119) (1995). “Compliance with the discretionary appeals procedure

isjurisdictional.” Hair Restoration Specialists v. State of Ga., 360 Ga. App. 901, 903

(862 SE2d 564) (2021) (punctuation omitted). Pittman’s failure to follow the proper

procedure deprives us of jurisdiction over this appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED. 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

August 10, 2022

08/10/2022
#### Alecia Price, Appellant, v Michael A. Grant, Defendant, and Joshua P. Cittadino et al., Respondents.

[874 NYS2d 579]-

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Mahon, J.), dated September 18, 2007, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants Joshua E Cittadino and Alfred J. Cittadino, dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against those defendants, and (2) an order of the same court entered October 29, 2007, which denied her motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside the jury verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence.

Ordered that the judgment and the order are affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle driven by the defendant Michael Grant. That vehicle was involved in a collision with a vehicle driven by the defendant Joshua Cittadino at a T-shaped intersection on a roadway with two southbound lanes and two northbound lanes. The plaintiff and Grant alleged that Grant was attempting to make a left turn from the left southbound lane when Cittadino, also proceeding southbound, at an excessive rate of speed, crossed into the northbound lane in an attempt to pass Grant on the left. Cittadino alleged that he was driving in the left southbound lane through a green light at the intersection when Grant suddenly attempted to make a left turn or u-turn from the right southbound lane.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the jury’s findings that both Grant and Cittadino were negligent but that Cittadino’s negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident were not *747“factually inconsistent and logically impossible” since Cittadino’s negligence was not “inextricably interwoven” with a finding of proximate cause *(Martin v Clark,*47 AD3d 981, 983 [2008]; *Ahr v Karolewski,*32 AD 3d 805, 806 [2006]). In addition, because the jury could have credited Cittadino’s testimony that Grant must have made a sudden left turn from the right lane, the verdict was not contrary to the weight of the evidence *(see Griffin u Pennoyer,*49 AD3d 341, 342 [2008]; *Saggio v Ladone,*21 AD3d 407 [2005]; *Nazario v Stalica,*272 AD2d 903 [2000]; *Nicastro v Park,*113 AD2d 129 [1985]). Mastro, J.P., Balkin, Dickerson and Belen, JJ., concur.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United
States Code, the undersigned certifies that the foregoing Form 10-Q fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Registrant at the dates and for the periods indicated. No purchaser or seller
of securities shall be entitled to rely on the foregoing statement for any
purpose, and the undersigned expressly disclaim any obligation to update the
foregoing statement except as required by law.

FIRST FEDERAL CAPITAL CORP/s/ Jack C. Rusch
    
    November 12, 2003Jack C. RuschPresident and Chief Executive Officer(duly authorized officer)


35
No. 670, Misc.

#### Edwards *v.*Clemmer, Director.

Application denied.
If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLI CATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

- 1

- 

### S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appell ant

, UNPUBLISHED November 10, 2022

v No. 358 389

Calhoun Circuit Court

KEVIN THEODORE WILSON

, LC No. 2020

- 00 1489

- F H

Defendant

- Appell ee

.

Before: S AWYER

, P .J., and M ARKEY and S WARTZLE , JJ.

S WARTZLE

, J. ( concurring in part, dissenting in part )

.

While I agree that this matter shoul d be returned to the trial court, I would vacate the trial

court’s dismissal of charges rather than outright reverse. It appears that there was some confusion in the record as to the precedential effect of People v Borowka , un published per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued September 17, 201 9 (Docket No. 346398) , a case upon which I sat. The analysis in Borowka clearly supported the trial court’s dismissal here, although neither the analysis nor the holding dictated that dismi ssal. Accordingl y, I would remand the matter for the sole purpose of permitting the trial court to reconsider its dismissal in light of the fact that Borowka was an unpublished decision.

/s/ Brock A. Swartzle
FILED IN 14th COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 2/17/2015 10:13:25 AM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                              56
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  134,358
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,455)
<INVENTORY>                                     52,549
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               189,090
<PP&E>                                          23,184
<DEPRECIATION>                                (11,190)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 203,085
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          147,305
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            49
<OTHER-SE>                                      54,238
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   203,085
<SALES>                                        468,803
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               468,803
<CGS>                                          432,994
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  432,994
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                36,145
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 (168)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (1,091)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    923
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       923
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.10


</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined t hat

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

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-20492 Summary Calendar

GARY FARMER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

HALLIBURTON COMPANY, doing business as Halliburton Energy Services

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas

(H:98-CV-3285)

_________________________________________________________________ November 26, 2001

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges:

PER CURIAM: *

Gary Farmer appeals from the final judgment, following two

su mmary judgments, on his claims for age discrimination under §

5.01 of the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act, Tex. Labor Code

Ann. § 21.051, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (AEDA), 29

U.S.C. §§ 621-634, and § 510 of the Employment Retirement Income

Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1140. We affirm the judgment of

the district court for essentially the reasons stated in the

distr ict court’s detailed 27 September 2000 and 12 April 2001

opinions.2

For Farmer’s ERISA claim, and assuming Farm er established a

prima facie case, Halliburton provided a legitimate nond iscriminatory reason for its selection of Jamail over Farmer to

hold the new Travel Manager position created by Halliburton’s 1996

Shared Services Initiative (SSI), and the three year age difference

between Farm er (51) and Jamail (48) was insignificant under

O’Connor v. C

onsol. Coin Caterers Corp., 5 17 U.S. 308 (1996).

Consequently, the inference of pretext was insufficient to

withstan d summary judgment. Also, Halliburton provided a

legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for including Farmer in the

reduction-in-force (RIF) that resulted from the SSI, and Farmer’s

evidence of pretext was insufficient.

Claims of age discrimination under the ADEA and the Texas

Commission on Human Rights Act are anal yzed under the same

analytical framework

— the one announced in McDonnell Douglas Corp.

v. Green

, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). S ee Evans v. City of Houston, Tex.,

246 F.3d 344, 348 (2001). The district court correctly concluded:

Halliburton’s justification for its decision to hire Jamail

(because he was more qu alified) was a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason; Farmer’s evidence was insufficient to

establi sh pretext; and Farmer failed to establish a prima facie

c ase with respect to the RIF, because he did not raise a factual

issue as to whether F armer was included in the RIF based on

impermissible age discrimination. Rather, as the distri ct court

noted, Farmer raised claims more properly raised for his ERISA

claim. See Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604, 612 (1993).

AFFIRMED
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, V. ELMER C. KIMBALL 

CITATION: 1 Agric. Dec. 358 

DOCKET NUMBER: 17 

DATE: MAY 23, 1942 

DOCUMENT TYPE: NOTICE AND ORDER 

(A. D. 126) 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE 

CE-A Docket No. 17 

 

SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE. Complainant v. ELMER C. KIMBALL, Respondent. Notice 

and Order. 

The order entered in this proceeding on August 26, 1940, directed all 

contract markets to refuse Elmer C. Kimball all trading privileges thereon until 

further notice by the Secretary of Agriculture. Elmer C. Kimball has filed a 

petition praying that his trading privileges on contract markets be restored and 

the Agricultural Marketing Administration of the Department of Agriculture has 

offered no objection to the restoration of his trading privileges. Upon 

examination of the record in this proceeding, respondent's petition and the 

recommendation of the Agricultural Marketing Administration, it is determined 

that the trading privileges of Elmer C. Kimball should be restored. 

NOTICE

All contract markets are hereby notified that Elmer C. Kimball may be granted 

trading privileges by contract markets on and after the date of this notice. 

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that a copy hereof be sent by registered mail to the respondent 

and to each contract market. 

Done at Washington, D. C., this 23rd day of May 1942. 

Witness my hand and the seal of the Department of Agriculture. 

[SEAL] 

(S) GROVER B. HILL 

Assistant Secretary of Agriculture 

 

LOAD-DATE: March 12, 2008 
Page 2
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 23

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-1146 of The L.L. Knickerbocker Co. Inc. on Form S-8 and in Registration
Statements No. 333-15185, No. 333-37101 and No. 333-59169 on Form S-3 of our
report, which contains an explanatory paragraph regarding substantial doubt
about the Company's ability to continue as a going concern, dated March 31,
1999, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of The L.L. Knickerbocker
Co., Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1998.

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Costa Mesa, California
April 14, 1999
<TABLE> <S> <C>

                                 

<ARTICLE>                                             9


       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       12,428,964
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                        6,980,231
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                      0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                      0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                   4,434,589
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                        4,405,678
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                  0
<LOANS>                                     161,151,103
<ALLOWANCE>                                   1,139,166
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              192,508,573
<DEPOSITS>                                  148,140,938
<SHORT-TERM>                                          0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                           2,412,423
<LONG-TERM>                                  15,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                         25,721
<OTHER-SE>                                   26,781,253
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              192,508,573
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              10,252,194
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               248,584
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                187,847
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             10,688,625
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                            4,821,221
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            5,557,857
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                         5,130,768
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   135,999
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                              808,516
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                               4,236,134
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               2,580,482
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                    2,580,482
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                  1,087,846
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       .58
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       .58
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                        0
<LOANS-NON>                                     815,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                          0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                      0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                       0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                      0
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                         0
<RECOVERIES>                                          0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                     0
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                   0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                               0
        


</TABLE>