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

            COMMISSION DECISION         

of 18 October 2004         

terminating the accelerated review of Council Regulation (EC) No 2164/98 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of certain broad spectrum antibiotics originating in India

(2004/830/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2026/97 of 6 October 1997 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (the basic Regulation), and in particular Article 20 thereof,

After consulting the Advisory Committee,

Whereas:

A.   PREVIOUS PROCEDURE

B.   CURRENT PROCEDURE

1.   Request for review

2.   Initiation of an accelerated review

3.   Product concerned

4.   Investigation period

5.   Parties concerned

C.   SCOPE OF THE REVIEW

D.   RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION

1.   New exporter qualification

2.   Subsidisation

2.1.   Schemes originally investigated and used by the company

2.1.1.   Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme (DEPBS)

General

Calculation of the subsidy amount

2.1.2.   Income Tax Exemption Scheme (ITES)

2.2.   Schemes originally investigated but not used by the company

2.2.1.   Passbook Scheme (PBS)

2.2.2.   Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (EPCGS)

2.2.3.   Export Processing Zones (EPZ)/Export Oriented Units (EOU)

2.3.   Other scheme used by the applicant in relation to the product concerned and found countervailable: Advance Licence Scheme for physical exports (ALS physical exports)

Legal basis

Eligibility

Practical implementation

Conclusion

Calculation of the subsidy amount

3.   Total amount of countervailable subsidies

E.   TERMINATION OF THE ACCELERATED REVIEW

F.   DISCLOSURE

DECIDES:

Sole Article

The accelerated review of Regulation (EC) No 2164/98 concerning Nestor Pharmaceuticals Limited is hereby terminated.

Done at Brussels, 18 October 2004.

For the Commission

Pascal LAMY            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 288, 21.10.1997, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 461/2004 (OJ L 77, 13.3.2004, p. 12).

(2)OJ L 273, 9.10.1998, p. 1.

(3)OJ C 102, 29.4.2003, p. 6.

(4)  Notification No 1/2002-07 of 31 March 2002 of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry of the GOI.

----
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NOE CALIXTO BLAS,

Petitioner,

 v.

ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting

Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 20-70236

Agency No. A216-183-035

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted March 1, 2021

Seattle, Washington

Before: TASHIMA, RAWLINSON, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner Calixto Blas requests review of the Board of Immigration

Appeal’s (BIA’s) decision affirming an Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) denial of his

application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the

Convention Against Torture. Calixto Blas argues, inter alia, that the IJ violated

FILED

MAR 8 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
due process by denying his request for a continuance to secure counsel, and the

BIA erred in affirming that denial. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 

We review claims of due process violations de novo, Lianhua Jiang v. Holder, 754

F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014), and denial of a continuance for abuse of discretion,

Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). We grant the petition and

remand to the agency.

1

At Calixto Blas’s hearing on the merits of his asylum and withholding

application, he withdrew his prior waiver of counsel by requesting a “continuance”

so he could be represented by an attorney. After minimal inquiry, the IJ denied the

request and required Calixto Blas to proceed pro se. 

In the absence of a knowing and voluntary waiver of the right to counsel,

“the IJ must inquire whether there is good cause to grant petitioner more time to

obtain counsel.” Biwot v. Gonzales, 403 F.3d 1094, 1100 (9th Cir. 2005); 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.29. The IJ here did not do so. See Biwot, 403 F.3d at 1099 (Good cause

factors include “the realistic time necessary to obtain counsel; the time frame of the

requests for counsel; the number of continuances; any barriers that frustrated [his]

efforts to obtain counsel, such as being incarcerated or an inability to speak

1

 Because we conclude that the IJ erred in denying Calixto Blas a

continuance to finish securing counsel, we need not address the remainder of the

petition and decline to do so.

2
English; and whether [he] appears to be delaying in bad faith.”). Because the IJ

failed to inquire further as to Calixto Blas’s circumstances and potential good

cause for the requested continuance, the IJ abused his discretion in denying the

request. See id. When an alien has been denied an attorney at the merits hearing,

we presume prejudice and remand is automatic. See Montes-Lopez v. Holder, 694

F.3d 1085, 1093–94 (9th Cir. 2012).

PETITION GRANTED; REMANDED.

3
DUIT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., petitioner, v. ARKANSAS STATE CLAIMS COMMISSION, et al.

No. 15-1276.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Arkansas denied.
Marcus James MAYFIELD, petitioner, v. TEXAS.

No. 16-6358.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 12, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Third District denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                              JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         13,985
<SECURITIES>                                   18,908
<RECEIVABLES>                                  10,300
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               46,021
<PP&E>                                         88,031
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (4,976)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                170,865
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          28,967
<BONDS>                                       132,747
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                           21
<OTHER-SE>                                      3,494
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  170,865
<SALES>                                        21,049
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               21,049
<CGS>                                          14,748
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  13,240
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             10,720
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (17,040)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (17,040)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (17,040)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.88)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0



</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2

 

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

ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Fortune Industries, Inc., an Indiana corporation, (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending February 29, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Garth A. Allred, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify the following pursuant to Section 18, U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:

 

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:  July 7, 2008 | By: /s/ Garth A. Allred   |
|---------------------|--------------------------------|

Garth A. Allred, 

Chief Financial Officer
Ricky Jovan GRAY, petitioner, v. David ZOOK, Warden.

No. 15-9473.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 7, 2016.

Petition for rehearing denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 166 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 166

Recognizing the 450th birthday of the settlement of Pensacola, Florida, 
 and encouraging the people of the United States to observe the 450th 
birthday of the settlement of Pensacola, Florida, and remember how the 
  rich history of Pensacola, Florida, has likewise contributed to the 
       rich history of the United States, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 12, 2009

 Mr. Miller of Florida (for himself, Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida, 
  Mr. Mack, Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida, Mr. Rooney, Ms. Corrine 
   Brown of Florida, Mr. Crenshaw, Mr. Klein of Florida, Mr. Meek of 
Florida, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Young of Florida, Mr. Buchanan, Ms. Kosmas, Ms. 
   Ros-Lehtinen, Mr. Hastings of Florida, Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of 
Florida, Mr. Stearns, Mr. Putnam, Mr. Wexler, Mr. Bilirakis, Mr. Posey, 
and Mr. Mica) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
            the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Recognizing the 450th birthday of the settlement of Pensacola, Florida, 
 and encouraging the people of the United States to observe the 450th 
birthday of the settlement of Pensacola, Florida, and remember how the 
  rich history of Pensacola, Florida, has likewise contributed to the 
       rich history of the United States, and for other purposes.

Whereas the settlement of Pensacola, Florida, was first established by the 
        Spanish explorer Don Tristan de Luna on August 15, 1559;
Whereas the settlement of Pensacola, Florida, in 1559 was the first European 
        settlement in the United States;
Whereas a hurricane devastated the early settlement in 1559 causing widespread, 
        irreparable damage;
Whereas Don Tristan de Luna and his party were forced to abandon the settlement 
        and return to their native Spain after the hurricane devastated 
        Pensacola;
Whereas Pensacola, Florida, was resettled by the Spanish in 1696; and
Whereas Pensacola, Florida, has come under five different flags of government 
        during its existence, including Spain, France, Great Britain, the 
        Confederate States of America, and the United States: Now, therefore, be 
        it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) recognizes the 450th birthday of the city of Pensacola, 
        Florida; and
            (2) encourages the people of the United States to observe 
        and celebrate the 450th birthday of the settlement of 
        Pensacola, Florida, its rich history under five flags of 
        government, and how its rich history has likewise contributed 
        to the rich history of the United States.
                                 <all>
```
Gregory BELL, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 15-8606.

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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000934665
<NAME> IEC FUNDING CORP.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                               1
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,075
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                24,076
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 514,363
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,075
<BONDS>                                        490,287
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           1
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   514,363
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (49,404)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              49,404
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
secretary 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Dear, 

5*ft [zhangdan@cfmmc.com] 

Wednesday, August 05, 2009 6:10AM 

secretary 

09--(f 

® 

question about 74 FR 31642: 17 CFR Part 1 6 Account Ownership and Control Report 

My name is Cherry Zhang, I am a reseacher in future industry and have studied the CFTC 

regulation for some time. 

I am personally in favor of the OCR report. The information of related accounts is both 

important to the market surveillance program and trade practice surveillance program. 

But, some details in the OCR report puzzled me. In page one footnote 2, it is said "Under the 

CFTC's large trader record format, special account numbers contain two elements:(l) a 

reporting firm ID and (2) a unique account number assigned by the reporting firm." I wonder 

the similarities and differences of the following three numbers: special account number, 

reporting number(which is in the Form 102), account number. 

Billions of thanks! 

Yours, 

Cherry Zhang 

1 

.-....:. 

c:;:, 

~ 

~ 

::I:> 

c:::= 

C> 

N 

.CJ.) 

::0 

::3 

c::o 

"" 0 

0 

.., 

~ 

0 

lTl 

0 

., 

-I 0 :z: . ITJ71 

cn.:-1 

lTJ·O 

o· 

::0 

~ l> 

::0 

i> 

-I
1308.

#### THOMPSON *v.*THE STATE.

The evidence affirmatively shows that there was no fraudulent intention on the part of the defendant when he obtained from the prosecutor the money on his labor contract; consequently, there was no violation of the act of the General Assembly of 1903 (Acts 1903, p. 90), and the verdict of guilty was contrary to law. *Mwlloey*v. *Slate,*1 *Ga. App.*521 (57 S. E. 1022).

Accusation of cheating and swindling, from city court of Quit-man — Judge McCall. June 18, 1908.

Submitted October 6,

Decided October 12, 1908.

*J. D. Wade Jr.,*for plaintiff in error.

Hill, C. J.

Thompson was convicted of a violation *of*the act of 1903 making criminal the obtaining of money or other thing of value upon a fraudulent promise to perform services. He made a motion for a new trial on the general grounds, and the judgment overruling the same is the error assigned. The evidence clearly shows the contract and the obtaining of the money by the accused. It is equally clear, from the State’s evidence, that the accused at the time he obtained the money from the prosecutor •on his promise to perform the service according to his contract did not have any criminal intention. A witness for the State, who employed the defendant subsequently to his contract with the prosecutor, testified that the defendant stated to him that he owed the prosecutor the amount of money which the prosecutor had advanced to him, and refused to accept employment until this money was repaid. The witness loaned him the money to repay the prosecutor, and the accused went to the home of the prosecutor for that purpose, but failing to find the prosecutor, returned to the witness, and, stating that fact, gave the money to the witness on his express promise to deliver it to the prosecutor. The witness did not perform his promise, but the defendant did not *847know that he had not done so, until his arrest. The subsequent conduct of the defendant as above stated, fairly and reasonably construed, refutes the existence of an intention to defraud when he obtained the money from the prosecutor on his contract to perform services; and for this reason the verdict against him was contrary to law, and a new trial should have been granted.

*Judgment reversed.*
EXHIBIT 99.1

News Release
-----------
Sitrick and Company, Inc.
Los Angeles/New York


                              Contact:  Sitrick and Company, Inc.
                                        Rivian Bell         
                                        (310) 788-2850
                                        (800) 686-1910 (24 hours)
For Immediate Release
---------------------
               


  SMITH CORONA TO RELOCATE WORLD HEADQUARTERS TO CORTLAND, N.Y.


     New Canaan, Conn. -- Oct. 7, 1996 -- Smith Corona
Corporation today announced its intent to relocate its world
headquarters in New Canaan, Conn. to its facility in Cortland,
N.Y. near the Syracuse metropolitan area.

     Smith Corona employs approximately 30 people in Connecticut. 
Of these, half will either retain their current positions or be
offered identical positions at the Cortland facility.  For those
facing job terminations, the company's normal severance policies
will remain in effect.  Relocation activities will culminate with
the closing of the New Canaan office before year-end.

     Job junctions affected by the headquarters relocation
include the offices of the chief executive officer and chief
financial officer, as well as personnel in finance, marketing,
and domestic and international sales.  Domestic sales personnel
and the Dallas regional sales office will remain in their
respective locations.

     Ronald F. Stengel, president and chief executive officer at
Smith Corona, said "The relocation will further enhance day-to-day 
communications between our operating groups by consolidating
functional activities under one roof.  In addition, significant
cost savings will be realized by shedding the costs associated
with maintaining a separate facility in New Canaan.  By
maintaining our domestic sales team throughout the U.S., we will
continue to serve our customer base without interruption."

     Smith Corona is a leading worldwide manufacturer and
marketer of personal word processors, portable electric
typewriters, fax machines, label printers, and other products and
accessories for use in the office, home and school.

     The company filed under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy
Code on July 5, 1995.  The reorganization is proceeding on
schedule, with ballots due from creditors on Oct. 18, 1996 and
the confirmation hearing planned for Oct. 31 in Wilmington, Del.



                            #   #   #
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leopoldo GONZALEZ-HURTADO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-50111.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*666Submitted May 25, 2010.*

Filed June 14, 2010.

Peter Jordan Mazza, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Michelle Anderson, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Leopoldo Gonzalez-Hurtado appeals from the 57-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960, and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Gonzales-Hurtado contends that the district court erred by denying a minor-role adjustment under the Sentencing Guidelines because it: 1) failed to compare him to other likely participants in the scheme; and 2) incorrectly determined that he had not met his burden of showing that he was substantially less culpable than the other participants in the scheme. The record reflects that the district court properly considered Gonzales-Hurtado’s “culpability relative to the involvement of other likely actors” in the criminal scheme. *See United States v. Rojas-Millan,*234 F.3d 464, 473-474 (9th Cir.2000). Additionally, under the facts of the case, the district court did not clearly err by denying the adjustment. *See United States v. Cantrell,*433 F.3d 1269, 1282-84 (9th Cir.2006); *see also United States v. Lui,*941 F.2d 844, 849 (9th Cir.1991) (stating that a defendant “may be a courier without being either a minimal or a minor participant,” and that “possession of a substantial amount of narcotics is grounds for refusing to grant a sentence reduction”).

AFFIRMED.

**

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



Exhibit 32.2 Certification of Chief Financial 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/ Michael W. Dosland
Michael W. Dosland
Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
    
    May 7, 2004
 30