alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010209EN.01001002.xml

| 31.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 June 2010 — European Commission v Czech Republic

(Case C-378/09) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 85/337/EEC - First, second and third paragraphs of Article 10a - National legislation restricting the right of action against decisions in the environmental field - Failure to transpose within the time-limit prescribed)

2010/C 209/14

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Šimerdová and J.-B, Laignelot, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek and J. Jirkalová)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of the first, second and third paragraphs of Article 10a of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40), as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC (OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5) and Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2003 L 156, p. 17) — National legislation restricting public participation in decision making procedure in the environmental field.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt within the time-limit prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the first, second and third paragraphs of Article 10a of the Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt within the time-limit prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the first, second and third paragraphs of Article 10a of the Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | Orders the Czech Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.

1

---
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPI RES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT ANTHONY WILLIAMS, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D14-2125 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed November 14, 2014. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Hendry County; Donald H. Mason, Judge.

SILBERMAN, Judge.
Anthony Williams appeals the order summarily denying his motio n to correct jail credit filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Proced ure 3.801. We reverse. Williams was arrested on May 27, 2011, and later charged with criminal mischief, burglary of a structure, possession of burglary tools , and grand theft. On June 1, 2011, he bonded out of jail. After Williams failed to appea r, a warrant for his arrest was issued, and it was served on March 15, 2013. Williams plea ded to the offenses and was sentenced on July 12, 2013. He was awarded 125 days of jail credit, 5 days-2- for the time he spent in jail after his original arrest and 120 days for the time he spent in jail after he was arrested for failing to appear. In his motion to correct jail credit, Williams argued that und er these facts he was entitled to one more day of jail credit for a total of 1 26 days. The State asserted that Williams was entitled to only four days' credit for the ti me he spent in jail from May 27, 2011, to June 1, 2011, and that he should have been awarded a total of 124 days' credit. The postconviction court concurred with the State's ca lculations and denied Williams' motion. But May 27 to June 1 is 6 days. See Bronk v . State, 25 So. 3d 701, 703 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (noting that the statutory entitlement t o jail credit starts with the initial arrest and continues unt il the actual release from cust ody). Thus, Williams is entitled to one more day of jail credit. Accordingly, we rever se and remand for the postconviction court to award Williams one more day of jail cre dit for a total of 126 days. Reversed and remanded with directions.

MORRIS and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
Cassidine McDONALD, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6502.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>6
<LEGEND>THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
THE FORM 10-Q AS OF JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
<MULTIPLIER>1
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                   JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        6-MOS
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>           26,491,842
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>          31,437,561
<RECEIVABLES>                            0
<ASSETS-OTHER>                       6,232
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>             9,814,912
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  41,258,705
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>                 0
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>                  0
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>          141,284
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>                141,284
<SENIOR-EQUITY>                          0
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>        36,171,702
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>              400,000
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>              400,000
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>                0
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>                   0
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>                  0
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>                 0
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>         4,945,719
<NET-ASSETS>                    41,117,421
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>                        0
<INTEREST-INCOME>                1,063,103
<OTHER-INCOME>                           0
<EXPENSES-NET>                     740,613
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>            322,490
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>        14,507,901
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>      (14,391,166)
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>              439,225
<EQUALIZATION>                           0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>                0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>                 0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>           (1,935,574)
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>                  0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>              0
<SHARES-REINVESTED>                      0
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>          (1,496,349)
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>                  0
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>                0
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>                  0
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>               0
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>              123,944
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       0
<GROSS-EXPENSE>                    743,163
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>            41,865,596
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>               103.99
<PER-SHARE-NII>                       1.74
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>                  0
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>                     0
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>                0
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>                     0
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>                 105.73
<EXPENSE-RATIO>                        1.8

</TABLE>
William L. DEUERLEIN, petitioner, v. NEBRASKA, et al.

No. 15-8775.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.
Jimmy BOOTH, Jr., petitioner, v. Chad PRINGLE, Warden.

No. 16-6573.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1979

DORARENA BOYD, et al.,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

ROBERT MURRAY; BEVERLY BROWN; CHARLOTTE MAULL; SHEPHERD 

VILLAGE; FIRST BAPTIST BUTE STREET; REGIONAL LICENSE; 

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES; GLENDA AMES, Regional 

Office; SUE MYATT; DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY 

DEVELOPMENT, Division of Building Safety; HEALTH 

DEPARTMENT; VIRGINIA EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION; MICHAEL EUGENE 

PLUMMER; MIRCLE TABERNACLE FAMILY CENTER; TASTE N SEE; 

CONFERENCE CENTER,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, 

District Judge. (2:15-cv-00329-AWA-DEM)

Submitted: January 21, 2016 Decided: January 27, 2016

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dorarena Boyd, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Dorarena Boyd seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

dismissing her civil action without prejudice. This court may 

exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 

(2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 

U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial 

Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). Because the 

deficiencies identified by the district court may be remedied by 

the filing of an amended complaint, we conclude that the order 

Boyd seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable 

interlocutory or collateral order. See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal 

Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 623 (4th Cir. 2015). 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Sebastian QUINTERO-HUERTA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 10-73537.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.*

Filed March 2, 2012.

Carol L. Edward, Esquire, Law Offices of Carol L. Edward & Assoc., PS, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.

OIL, Colin J. Tucker, Shahrzad Baghai, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Sebastian Quintero-Huerta, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his motion to suppress evidence and his request to terminate proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the denial of a motion to suppress de novo. *See United States v. Jones,*286 F.3d 1146, 1150 (9th Cir.2002). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not err in denying the motion to suppress. The exclusionary rule does not generally apply in immigration proceedings. *See INS v. Lopez-Mendoza,*468 U.S. 1032, 1050-51, 104 S.Ct. 3479, 82 L.Ed.2d 778 (1984). We have held, however, that it does bar the introduction of evidence obtained through “egregious violations” of the Fourth Amendment. *See Orhorhaghe v. INS,*38 F.3d 488, 493 (9th Cir.1994). An officer acts egregiously when he “committ[s] the violation deliberately or by conduct a reasonable officer should have known would violate the Constitution.” *Id.*Quintero-Huerta does not contend that the officers here deliberately violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Nor should a reasonable officer have known that the Anacortes checkpoint was unconstitutional. *See United States v. Martinez-Fuerte,*428 U.S. 543, 96 S.Ct. 3074, 49 L.Ed.2d 1116 (1976). Thus, even if there was a violation, an issue we do not decide, the motion was properly denied.

The record does not support QuinteroHuerta’s contention that the government violated either 8 C.F.R. § 287.8(b)(1) or INA § 287(a)(2). Furthermore, QuinteroHuerta admitted his unlawful presence pri- or to his arrest. *United States v. Calderon-Medina,*591 F.2d 529, 531 (9th Cir.1979) (A violation of an INS regulation invalidates a deportation proceeding only if “the regulation serves a purpose of benefit to the alien” and “the violation prejudiced *616interests of the alien which were protected by the regulation.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
EXHIBIT 32.2



Certification by the Chief Financial Officer 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. Section 1350, I,
Mark A. Hess, hereby certify that, to my knowledge, this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of ENGlobal Corporation for the fiscal year
ended December 26, 2015 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of ENGlobal Corporation.





|      |              
|----- | -------------
|      |              
|Date: | June 15, 2016
|      |              
|      |              



This certification accompanies this Annual Report
on Form 10-K/A pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such
Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange
Act”). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of
1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. ER01-2329-000]

Take notice that on June 19, 2001, the New England Power Pool Participants Committee and ISO New England Inc. (the Joint Filers) made a joint filing requesting the Commission accept as a rate schedule for the New England Markets the substance of the standard market design (SMD Document).

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and protests should be filed on or before July 3, 2001. Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-15862  Filed 6-22-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

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

 

I, David L. Dyckman, as Executive Vice President and Chief FinancialOfficer of Thermadyne Holdings Corporation (the “Company”) certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that to my knowledge:

 

(1) the accompanying Form 10-Q report for the period ending March 31,2005 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”)fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

 
| Dated:  May 10, 2005 |   |
|---------------------------|--------|
|                      |   |
|                      |   |
|                      | By:    |   | /s/ David L. Dyckman |   |
|                      |   |   |
|                      |   | David L. Dyckman |
|                      |   | Executive Vice President and |
|                      |   | Chief Financial Officer |
|                      |   | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |

 

----
RICHARD L. BOND 

January 17, 2008 

Mr. David Stawick, Secretary 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

Three Lafayette. Ctntre 

1155 21st Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20581 

PRESIDENT & CHIEF 

EXECUTIVE OFFFICER 

COMMENT 

Re: Proposed Revision of Federal Speculative Position Limits 

Dear Mr. Stawick, 

~·· 

'-····· 

' 

I·· r 

On behalf ofTysori Foods, Irtc., thank you for the. opportunity to present comments on the 

proposed revision of Federal speculative position limits·for agricultural commodities. Our 

company does not support this proposaL. tyson is one of the country's largest com and soybean 

meal end-users. As noted by our competitors and the National Chicken Council (NCC), it is vital 

that the financial markets reflect the fundamentals of the supply and demand for the grain 

markets. That doesnot·exist today. Based on the current money flows into agricultural 

commodities, we believe that allowing these increased limits will further encourage monies to 

flow into grains. · This in turn will cause increased distorted price action and a continued increase 

in unwarranted volatility for end-users like us. 

We are disturbed by the size of the proposed change in the Federal speculative position limits. 

There are ample opportunities for speculators to participate in these commodity markets~ As it is, 

price distortions.exist in the market that the CFTC has tiot addressed. Because of the heightened 

interest in commodities as an investment vehicle, the expected convergence between the physical 

and futures is not occurring. The futures prices relative to the physical contract is not accurately 

reflecting the cash-market carrying charges- one of the reasons to utilize this derivative 

instrument for our risk management practices. End-users hedge their exposures using the 

financial markets based on the implicit assumption that the payoff profile between the physical 

and financial does not breakdown and that they are positively correlated. That does not exist 

today across all these grain markets. 

The combined impact of increasing limits for the speculator and exempting the index funds from 

speculative limits (addressed in another proposed rulemaking by the CFTC) would cause 

increased price volatility from which onlythe exchanges themselves will benefit. The 

effectiveness of utilizing these financial instruments to hedge our inputs will be further impaired. 

2210 WEST OAKLAWN DRIVE • SPRINGDALE, ARKANSAS 72762-6999 

(479) 290-2970 • emaiL richard.bond@tyson.com 

··, .. ~ 

-.. "'-·--. ' . .: r·:·: 

1,...,,._.· 
In sum, if the proposal to increase speculative limits is adopted, it will not be beneficial to the 

end user community. 

If you have further comments, please feel free to contact me. 

Sincerely,
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                          5
<MULTIPLIER>                                                     1

<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                       SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                                     2319383
<SECURITIES>                                                236000
<RECEIVABLES>                                              4012727
<ALLOWANCES>                                                564877
<INVENTORY>                                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                           6003233
<PP&E>                                                      289368
<DEPRECIATION>                                              189468
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                             6296923
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      1019113
<BONDS>                                                    4954000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                      0
<COMMON>                                                    323810
<OTHER-SE>                                                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                               6296923
<SALES>                                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                            164493
<CGS>                                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                               115988
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                            420009
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           (473830)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                          169809
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                              48505
<INCOME-TAX>                                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                              0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  0
<CHANGES>                                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                                 48505
<EPS-BASIC>                                                   0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                 0.02



</TABLE>
Robert BLOUNT, petitioner, v. WHITMAN WALKER CLINIC, et al.

No. 16-6450.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals denied.
VILLAGE OF PINEHURST, NORTH CAROLINA, et al., petitioners, v. ESTATE OF Ronald H. ARMSTRONG, By and Through His Administratrix, Jinia Armstrong Lopez.

No. 15-1380.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

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