alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2018148EN.01001301.xml

| 27.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/13

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

(2018/C 148/07)

In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Union control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:

1

| Date and time of closure | 14.3.2018 |
| --- | --- |
| Duration | 14.3.2018-31.12.2018 |
| Member State | France |
| Stock or Group of stocks | SBR/678- |
| Species | Red seabream (Pagellus bogaraveo) |
| Zone | Union and international waters of VI, VII and VIII |
| Type(s) of fishing vessels | — |
| Reference number | 05/TQ2285 |

Date and time of closure

14.3.2018

Duration

14.3.2018-31.12.2018

Member State

France

Stock or Group of stocks

SBR/678-

Species

Red seabream (Pagellus bogaraveo)

Pagellus bogaraveo

Zone

Union and international waters of VI, VII and VIII

Type(s) of fishing vessels

—

Reference number

05/TQ2285

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

1

---
# C_2018114EN.01001901.xml

| 28.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 114/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 114/19

---

Notice concerning a request pursuant to Article 35 of Directive 2014/25/EU

Suspension of the period for adoption of implementing acts

(2018/C 114/11)

On 30 January 2017 the Commission received a request pursuant to Article 35 of Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (1).

1

This request, made by Eneco B.V. and N.V. Nuon Energy, concerns certain activities in the market for retail of electricity and gas in the Netherlands.

The relevant notices were published in OJ C 85 of 18.3.2017, p. 6, in OJ C 212 of 1.7.2017, p. 24, in OJ C 439 of 20.12.2017, p. 14 and in OJ C 444 of 23.12.2017, p. 17.

Pursuant to Annex IV, paragraph 2, of Directive 2014/25/EU, the Commission may require the Member State or the contracting entity concerned or the competent independent national authority or any other competent national authority to provide all necessary information or to supplement or clarify information given within an appropriate time limit. On 21 December 2017 the Commission asked the applicant to provide additional information by 10 January 2018 at the latest.

In the event of late or incomplete answers, the initial deadline shall be suspended for the period between the expiry of the time limit set in the request for information, and the receipt of the complete and correct information.

The final deadline will therefore expire after 52 working days after the receipt of the complete and correct information.

---

(1)  Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on procurement by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC (OJ L 94, 28.3.2014, p. 243).

1

---
Erwin BURLEY, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-5071.

Supreme Court of the United States.

Oct. 7, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Exhibit
32


CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Lone Mountain Mines Inc., a Nevada
corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March
31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”),
I, Kevin M. Murphy, Secretary/President of the Company, certify, pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that
to my knowledge:




(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; 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/  Kevin
M. Murphy


Kevin M
Murphy, Acting Secretary, President


Dated:  May
20th
2009
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 6
<CIK> 0000919557
<NAME> SB LARGE CAPITALIZATION GROWTH PORTFOLIO
<SERIES>
   <NUMBER> 13
   <NAME> TRAVELERS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-2000
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>                      221,890,658
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>                     278,537,339
<RECEIVABLES>                                  151,669
<ASSETS-OTHER>                                     142
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             278,689,150
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>                     4,478,136
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>                              0
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>                      436,655
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>                          4,914,791
<SENIOR-EQUITY>                                      0
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>                   217,799,955
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>                       16,211,054
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>                       11,577,964
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>                       33,780
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>                               0
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>                      (706,057)
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>                             0
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>                    56,646,681
<NET-ASSETS>                               273,774,359
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>                              881,524
<INTEREST-INCOME>                              111,393
<OTHER-INCOME>                                       0
<EXPENSES-NET>                                 868,442
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>                        124,475
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>                     (428,912)
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>                   32,043,823
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>                       31,739,386
<EQUALIZATION>                                       0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>                      130,419
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>                       318,223
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>                                0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>                      4,624,637
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>                     19,587
<SHARES-REINVESTED>                             28,040
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>                     105,494,048
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>                         39,724
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>                       41,078
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>                              0
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>                           0
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>                          833,486
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<GROSS-EXPENSE>                                868,486
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>                       224,685,644
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>                            14.53
<PER-SHARE-NII>                                   0.01
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>                           2.38
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>                              0.01
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>                         0.02
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>                              0.00
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>                              16.89
<EXPENSE-RATIO>                                   0.78


</TABLE>
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-1398

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the 

v. * Western District of Missouri.

*

Joshua R. Clifton, * [UNPUBLISHED]

* 

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 13, 2008

Filed: March 24, 2009

___________

Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Joshua Ryan Clifton pled guilty to being a felon in possession of ammunition,

in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). The district court applied a

“crime of violence” sentencing enhancement due to a prior Missouri conviction for

auto tampering, and imposed a 120-month sentence, the statutory maximum. Clifton

appeals, arguing that auto tampering does not qualify as a crime of violence under

U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2. In United States v. Williams, 537 F.3d 969 (8th Cir. 2008), this

court held that auto tampering is not a crime of violence. Accordingly, this court

vacates the sentence, and remands for resentencing. 

______________________________
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20
- 0066 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. MICHAEL JOSEPH MCCOY,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including August 5 , 20 20 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 30 2020

06/30/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0066
Randy CHARRIEZ-ROLON, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-5403

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
Quinton Omar JACKSON, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-6653

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

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

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1051 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Disperse Red 92. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 11, 2013 

Mr. WATT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Disperse Red 92. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. DISPERSE RED 92. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Disperse Red 92 (CAS No. 

72363–26–9) (provided for 

in subheading 3204.11.50) Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2016 ’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1051 IH

1 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

2 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                       9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                  SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         41,718,000
<SECURITIES>                                   66,080,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  82,057,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (6,574,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    83,757,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              273,902,000
<PP&E>                                         42,616,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               (10,262,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                316,028,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         110,603,000
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                           31,000
<OTHER-SE>                                    191,127,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  316,028,000
<SALES>                                       278,227,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              353,899,000
<CGS>                                         172,326,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 239,439,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (1,147,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               116,550,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   42,899,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            73,651,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                   73,651,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                          2.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        2.27


</TABLE>
To the Shareholders and Board of Directors of
Smith Barney Appreciation Fund Inc.:

In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements
of Smith Barney Appreciation Fund Inc. (the "Fund") for the year
ended December 31, 1997, we considered its internal control,
including control activities for safeguarding securities, in
order to determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of
expressing our opinion on the financial statements and to comply
with the requirements of Form N-SAR, not to provide assurance on
the internal control.

The management of the Fund is responsible for establishing and
maintaining internal control.  In fulfilling this responsibility,
estimates and judgments by management are required to assess the
expected benefits and related costs of controls.  Generally,
controls that are relevant to an audit pertain to the entity's
objective of preparing financial statements for external purposes
that are fairly presented in conformity with generally accepted
accounting principles. Those controls include the safeguarding of
assets against unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition.

Because of inherent limitations in internal control, errors or
irregularities may occur and not be detected.  Also, projection
of any evaluation of internal control to future periods is
subject to the risk that it may become inadequate because of
changes in conditions or that the effectiveness of the design and
operation may deteriorate.

Our consideration of the internal control would not necessarily
disclose all matters in the internal control that might be
material weaknesses under standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants.  A material weakness
is a condition in which the design or operation of one or more of
the internal control components does not reduce to a relatively
low level the risk that errors or irregularities in amounts that
would be material in relation to the financial statements being
audited may occur and not be detected within a timely period by
employees in the normal course of performing their assigned
functions.  However, we noted no matters involving the internal
control and its operation, including controls for safeguarding
securities that we consider to be material weaknesses as defined
above.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of
management, the Board of Directors of the Fund, and the
Securities and Exchange Commission.




February 10, 1998
James Abraham MATA, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES

No. 19-6109

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 18, 2019

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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6749

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

GEORGE ANTHONY DALLAS, a/k/a Pablo,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr.,

District Judge. (1:97-cr-00266-JAB; 1:05-cv-00910-JAB)

Submitted: August 31, 2006 Decided: September 7, 2006

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George Anthony Dallas, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Jane Hairston,

Assistant United States Attorney, Angela Hewlett Miller, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

George Anthony Dallas seeks to appeal the district

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge

and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Dallas has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
CONSULTING GROUP CAPITAL MARKETS FUNDS (the "Trust")
Supplement dated December 17, 1997, to the Prospectus dated December 
31, 1996

On November 3, 1997 the Trust's Board of Trustees approved the 
following:

	The hiring of Westpeak Investment Advisers ("Westpeak") 
as an additional investment adviser to Small Capitalization 
Growth Investments ("Small Cap Growth  Portfolio").  The 
Consulting Group, a division of Smith Barney Mutual Funds 
Management Inc. ("SBMFM"), the Trust's Investment Manager, 
recommended the hiring of Westpeak as an additional investment 
adviser due to the rapid growth in assets experienced by the 
Small Cap Growth Portfolio in 1997.  The hiring of Westpeak 
resulted in the entering into of an investment advisory 
agreement dated as of November 18, 1997 between SBMFM and 
Westpeak pursuant to which Westpeak will be receiving 0.50% 
for its services, a fee that is computed daily and paid 
monthly based on the value of the average net assets of the 
Small Cap Growth Portfolio allocated to Westpeak. Westpeak, 
located in Boulder, Colorado has been in the investment 
advisory business since 1991 and has $3 billion in assets 
under management. Shareholders of the Small Cap Growth 
Portfolio will soon receive an information statement regarding 
Westpeak.


FD 01366     12/97
DeGolyer and MacNaughton

5001 Spring Valley Road

Suite 800  East

Dallas,  Texas 75244

			 		

			 		

March 29, 2019

Epsilon Energy Ltd.

16701 Greenspoint Park Drive, Suite 195

Houston, Texas 77060

Ladies and Gentlemen:

We hereby consent to the reference to DeGolyer and MacNaughton and to the incorporation of the estimates contained in our reports entitled “Report as of December 31, 2018 on Reserves and Revenue of Certain Properties with interests attributable to Epsilon Energy Ltd.” and “Report as of December 31, 2017 on Reserves and Revenue of Certain Properties owned by Epsilon Energy Ltd.” in Part 1 and in the “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements” portion of the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Epsilon Energy Ltd. for the year ended December 31, 2018 (the Annual Report). We further consent to the inclusion of our report of third party dated March 13, 2019, relating to our independent evaluation of the estimated proved oil, condensate, and gas reserves, as of December 31, 2018, attributable to Epsilon Energy Ltd. in the Annual Report.

Very truly yours,

/s/ DeGolyer and MacNaughton

DeGOLYER and MacNAUGHTON 

Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-716

 

----
Prepared and filed by St Ives Burrups





                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.14

mPhase Technologies, Inc.



                                 PURCHASE ORDER

                                 Dated 12/15/02



                                       *



*** OMITTED as Confidential Information pursuant to Rule 24B-2 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. Such information has been filed separately with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 16

- 0080 Filed September 28, 2016

DUANE M. HUFFER AND HUFFER LAW, P.L.C. , Plaintiff s - Appell ants ,
vs. MINNESOTA LAWYERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, SUSAN CALHOUN, PATRICK GIBBS, AND SUSAN PARKS , Defendant s - Appell ees

.

________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, James C. Ellefson , Judge.

Plaintiffs appeal an adverse grant o f the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
AFFIRMED.

Duane M. Huffer of Huffer Law, P.L.C. , Ames , for appellant s

. Kevin J. Driscoll and Kellen B. Bubach of The Finley Law Firm, P.C. , Des Moines , for appellee s

.

Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and McDonald, JJ.2

MCDONALD, Judge. Duane Huffer, a lawyer, ceased employment with his father’s law firm, Huffer Law, P.L.C., in 2013. Huffer and his spouse, Angela Doss, also a lawyer, representing themselves and Huffer Law , filed this suit against Minn esota Lawyers Mutual and several of its employees , among a host of others

. 1 The plaintiffs’ claims against Minnesota Lawyers Mutual and its employees arise out of the insurance company’s removal of Huffer as an insured on Huffer Law’s malpractice insurance policy, done at Huffer Law’s direction, after Huffer was no longer associated with the firm. The petition was prolix, r ambling, incoherent, irration al, and failed to set forth any facts supporting a non

- frivolous legal claim against Minnesota Mutual or its employees. S ee generally Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.413 (“Counsel ’ s signature to every motion, pleading, or other paper shall be deemed a certificate that: counsel has read the motion, pleading, or other paper; that to the best of counsel ’ s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after reasonable inquiry, it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extensi on, modification, or reversal of existing law; and that it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or cause an unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation

. ”). The district court granted the insurance company defe ndants’ motion to dismiss on the grounds that the plaintiffs have asserted no cognizable legal claim and that the employee defendants were not sub ject to personal jurisdiction. “The case is

1 N either Huffer nor Doss was associated with Huffer Law at the time the petition was filed and had no authority to act for it or file suit. Huffer and Doss also named Huffer Law as a defendant in this case, which means Huffer and Doss were representing Huffer Law, without authorization, at the same time they were adverse to Huffer Law.3

utterly without merit, and the judgment is affirmed.” Alvord v. Alvord , 80 N.W. 306, 307 (Iowa 1899) ; s ee Iowa Ct. R. 21.26(1)( d) , (e).
AFFIRMED.