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

Action brought on 11 August 2005 — ADOMEX International BV v Commission

(Case T-315/05)

(2005/C 281/45)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant(s): ADOMEX International BV (represented by G. Van der Wal, Advocate, and T. Boesmans, Advocate)

Defendant(s): Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is an importer and wholesaler of floral products and is principally engaged in importing into the Netherlands and further processing various kinds of cut foliage originating mainly in non-Member States.

The applicant is challenging the Commission's decision not to object to an alteration in aid to flower producers approved in the framework of Files N 766/95 and NN 84/00. That system of aid concerns the rules governing a trade association for floral products established by the Horticultural commodity board, a subgrouping of the Netherlands trade organisation established under public law.

In support of its application the applicant submits that the Commission wrongly did not inquire whether the aid scheme in question is compatible with the common market and is in conflict with Articles 23 and 25 EC. According to the applicant there is therefore an infringement of the duty under Article 253 EC to provide a statement of the reasons on which the decision is based.

The applicant further submits that the contested decision runs counter to Articles 23 and 25 EC. According to the applicant the aid scheme approved by the Commission does not constitute internal taxation within the meaning of Article 90 EC but rather a charge having equivalent effect to a customs duty within the meaning of Articles 23 and 25 EC. This conclusion follows from the fact that the charge does not affect the national and imported product with like severity, at the same transactional stage and on the basis of the same chargeable event, and that there are no national products of the same kind as or competing with the taxed imported product with the result that there cannot be said to be an internal system of taxation.

In the applicant's view, the Commission decision is also incomprehensible or at least inadequately reasoned and thus in conflict with Article 253 EC. The applicant submits that the Commission refers in the decision to earlier decisions which are unsupported by a statement of reasons or in which the Commission gives its approval to an entirely different charge that that which is appraised in the decision. Moreover, the Commission appears to be manifestly in error as to the facts, inter alia by finding in the decision that the charge at issue is not imposed on imported products.

Finally, the applicant declares that as a party concerned it was not given an opportunity to make known its views and was unable to exercise its procedural rights under Article 88(2) EC.

----
STATE of North Carolina v. James Leroy LATTIMORE.

No. 493A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 6, 2005.

L. Jayne Stowers, Winston-Salem, for Lattimore.

Sharon Patrick-Wilson, Assistant Attorney General, R. Stuart Albright, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendant on the 6th day of September 2005 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the Attorney General, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th day of October 2005."
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4826 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

88–40 164th Street in Jamaica, New York, as the ‘‘Clarence L. Irving, 

Sr., Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 18, 2007 

Mr. MEEKS of New York (for himself, Mr. ACKERMAN, Ms. CLARKE, Mr. 

HINCHEY, Mr. TOWNS, Mr. BISHOP of New York, Mrs. MALONEY of New 

York, Mr. JEFFERSON, Mr. AL GREEN of Texas, Ms. CORRINE BROWN

of Florida, Ms. VELA ́ZQUEZ, Mr. SERRANO, Mrs. LOWEY, Mr. MCHUGH, 

Mr. MCNULTY, Mr. CROWLEY, Mr. NADLER, Mr. HIGGINS, Mr. RUSH, 

Mr. KUHL of New York, Mr. RANGEL, Mr. FOSSELLA, Mr. WEINER, and 

Mr. ENGEL) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 88–40 164th Street in Jamaica, New York, 

as the ‘‘Clarence L. Irving, Sr., Post Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CLARENCE L. IRVING, SR., POST OFFICE BUILD4 ING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 88–40 164th Street in Jamaica, 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HR 4826 IH

1 New York, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Clar2 ence L. Irving, Sr., Post Office Building’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Clarence L. Irving, 

7 Sr., Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
Order issued December 1, 2014 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

________________________________________

No. 05-12-01078-CR

________________________________________
ERIC ROSE, Appellant



### V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee



### O R D E R

Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Myers and Brown

Based on the Court’s opin ion of this date, we GRANT the June 30, 2014 motion of Julie

Woods for leave to withdraw as appointed counsel on appeal. We DIRECT the Clerk of the

Court to remove Julie Woods as couns el of record for appellant. We DIRECT the Clerk of the

Court to send a copy of this order and all future correspondence to Er ic Rose, TDCJ No.

1800661, Byrd Unit, 21 FM 247, Huntsville, Texas, 77320.

/Carolyn Wright/

CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
##### 



EXHIBIT 11.3

PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18
OF THE UNITED STATES CODE

CERTIFICATION FORM  SECTION 906 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

I, André Tremblay, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Microcell
Telecommunications Inc., (the Company) certify to the best of my knowledge
that (1) the Companys 20-F Form 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 20-F
Form fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

Date: June 25, 2003



| | /s/ André Tremblay
André Tremblay
| | ---------------------------------
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5386 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 5-Methyl-2- 

(methylethyl)cyclohexyl-2-hydroxypropanoate. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 12, 2008 

Mr. BROWN of South Carolina introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 5-Methyl2-(methylethyl)cyclohexyl-2-hydroxypropanoate. 

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

3 SECTION 1. 5-METHYL-2-(METHYLETHYL)CYCLOHEXYL-2- 

4 HYDROXYPROPANOATE. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.01.42 of the Har6 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

7 5-Methyl-2-(methylethyl)cyclohexyl-2-hydroxypropanoate) 

8 is amended by striking the date in the effective period col9 umn and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5386 IH

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

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
**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**

| 1. | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or                15(d), as applicable, 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                as of, and for, the periods presented in the                Report. |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| November                8, 2007 |   |  /s/                Robert E.                Cauley                                            Robert                E. Cauley Vice                Chairman of the Board, Senior                Executive Vice President, Chief                Financial Officer, Chief                Investment Officer and Treasurer |
|---------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
OSBORNE v. TATUM

No. COA05-628

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed February 7, 2006

Certification Date February 27, 2006

Appeal from Johnston (04CVS1652).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
HomeEducationCurrents

# What is a "knot"?

## Currents Tutorial

The term “knot”, in reference to currents, is defined as one nautical  mile per hour and is used to measure speed. A nautical mile is slightly  more than a standard mile.

1 nautical mile =  1.15 miles = 1.85 kilometers1 knot = 1.15 miles per hour =  1.85 kilometers per hour1 knot = 20.251969 inches per second = 51.44 centimeters per second

The term knot dates from the 17th Century, when sailors measured the  speed of their ship by the use of a device called a “common log.”  This  device was a coil of rope with uniformly spaced knots tied in it,  attached to a piece of wood shaped like a slice of pie.  The piece of  wood was lowered from the back of the ship and allowed to float behind  it. The line was allowed to pay out freely from the coil as the piece  of wood fell behind the ship for a specific amount of time.  When the  specified time had passed, the line was pulled in and the number of  knots on the rope between the ship and the wood were counted.  The  speed of the ship was said to be the number of knots counted (Bowditch,  1984).

### Currents Lessons

              - Welcome
              - Tidal Currents 1
              - Tidal Currents 2
              Coastal Currents
              - Waves
              - Longshore Currents
              - Rip Currents
              - Upwelling
              Surface Ocean Currents
              - The Coriolis Effect
              - Surface Ocean Currents
              - Boundary Currents
              - The Ekman Spiral
              The Global Conveyor Belt
              - Thermohaline Circulation
              - The Global Conveyor Belt
              - Effects of Climate Change
              How Are Currents Measured?
              - Age of Exploration
              - What is a "knot"?
              - Shallow Water Drifter
              - Deep Ocean Drifter
              - Current Profiler
              - Shore-based Current Meters
              - How Currents Affect Our Lives?
              - References
              - Roadmap to Resources
              - Subject Review

###### **Search** Education

###### Get **Social**

Contact Us

            - Provide Feedback 
            -  Contact Us 
            -  Report an error 

##### Science. Service.Stewardship.

###### 						About NOS 					

            - About Us
            - NOS Program Offices
            - Media Inquiries
            - Website Acknowledgements

###### 						Resources 					

            - Site Index
            - Disclaimer
            - Freedom of Information Act
            - Accessibility

###### 						More Resources 					

            - Information Quality
            - Privacy Policy
            - NOS For Employees
            - USA.gov

          -  National Ocean Service
          -  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
          -  Department of Commerce

##### 						Social 					

            - 
            - 
            - 
            - 
            -
**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Sign Media Systems, Inc. (the “Company”)
      on Form 10QSB for the quarter ending June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Antonio F.
      Uccello, III, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
      the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.
      906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





2.  The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated: September
      26, 2005





/s/
      Antonio F. Uccello,
      III


Antonio
      F. Uccello, III


Chief Executive Officer and


Chief
      Financial
      Officer
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 544 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 7, 2007 

Received 

AN ACT 

To designate the United States courthouse at South Federal 

Place in Santa Fe, New Mexico, as the ‘‘Santiago E. 

Campos United States Courthouse’’. 

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


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with DIGEST
2 

HR 544 RDS

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

2 The United States courthouse at South Federal Place 

3 in Santa Fe, New Mexico, shall be known and designated 

4 as the ‘‘Santiago E. Campos United States Courthouse’’. 

5 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

6 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

7 paper, or other record of the United States to the United 

8 States courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed 

9 to be a reference to the ‘‘Santiago E. Campos United 

10 States Courthouse’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives March 6, 

2007. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with DIGEST
**EXHIBIT32.3**

# **CERTIFICATIONBY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Visant Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ended July 1, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Marc L. Reisch, the Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)          TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)          Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date: August 11, 2006 | /s/ Marc L.  Reisch        |
|-----------------------|----------------------------|
|                  | Marc L. Reisch             |
|                  | *President  and*           |
|                  | *Chief  Executive Officer* |

 

This certificationaccompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 and shall not except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and this certification will not bedeemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Actof 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent the registrantspecifically incorporates it by reference.

 

----
EXHIBIT 10.1

                  WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC.
             NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION


      On  May  10, 2005, the registrant's Board of Directors
approved  an annual retainer of $10,000 for its non-employee
directors, and an additional $10,000 annual retainer for the
Audit Committee chair.

      In  addition  to  the  annual retainers,  non-employee
directors will continue to receive a fee of $2,000 for  each
meeting  of  the  Board of Directors and for each  committee
meeting not held on a day on which a meeting of the Board of
Directors  is  held.   Directors will also  continue  to  be
reimbursed  for travel expenses incurred to attend  meetings
of the Board of Directors and committee meetings.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5493 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 5493

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 16, 2008

                                Received

                             April 29, 2008

  Read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To provide that the usual day for paying salaries in or under the House 
 of Representatives may be established by regulations of the Committee 
                        on House Administration.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORITY OF COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION TO ESTABLISH 
              DAY FOR PAYING SALARIES IN OR UNDER THE HOUSE OF 
              REPRESENTATIVES.

    Section 116(a) of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2002 
(2 U.S.C. 60d-1) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
sentence: ``Notwithstanding the previous sentence, the Committee on 
House Administration may by regulation provide for the payment of 
salaries with respect to a month on a date other than the date provided 
under the previous sentence as may be necessary to conform to generally 
accepted accounting practices.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives April 15, 2008.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### The People of the State of New York, v Donald F. Smith, Defendant.

[798 NYS2d 924]

Per Curiam:

Motion for writ of error coram nobis to vacate decision and order of this Court in *People v Smith*(288 AD2d 629 [2001], *lv denied*97 NY2d 733 [2002]).

Defendant contends on this motion that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel upon the appeal from his judgment of conviction (288 AD2d 629 [2001], *lv denied*97 NY2d 733 [2002]; *see People v Bachert,*69 NY2d 593 [1987]). More specifically, defendant asserts that County Court failed to submit the charges of manslaughter in the second degree and vehicular manslaughter in the second degree to the jury in the alternative *(see*CPL 300.40 [5]; *People v Spurling,*199 AD2d 624 [1993]), that trial counsel failed to object to the jury instruction and that appellate counsel failed to raise this issue upon the appeal. We agree that the issue may have merit and should have been raised by appellate counsel *(see People v Hacker,*162 AD2d 815 [1990]). Accordingly, the instant motion for coram nobis relief is granted, the order of this Court dated and entered November 15, 2001 affirming the judgment of conviction is vacated, and defendant’s appeal is reinstated. Upon the reinstated appeal, defendant may raise only the issue of ineffective assistance of trial counsel with respect to the failure to object to the jury instruction pursuant to CPL 300.40 (5).

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is ordered that the motion is granted, the order dated and entered November 15, 2001 is vacated, and the appeal from the judgment of the County Court of Albany County, rendered December 21, 1999, is reinstated.

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Mugglin, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur.
IN RE K.D.S.

No. COA05-932

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed March 21, 2006

Certification Date April 10, 2006

Appeal from Ashe (04J7).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FERNANDO ENRIQUE RECINOS,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 18

- 71812

Agency No. A040

- 427

- 185

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 18, 2019 **

Before: FARRIS, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Fernando Enrique Recinos, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions pro se

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his

appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying his motion to reopen. Our

jurisdiction is governed b y 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part

the petition for review.

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

SEP 26 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 18

- 71812

Recinos does not raise, and therefore waives

, any challenge to the BIA’s

denial of his motion to reopen. See Lopez

- Vasquez v. Holder , 706 F.3d 1072,

1079

- 80 (9th Cir. 2013) ( issues not specifically raised and argued in an opening

brief are waived)

.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Recinos’s unexhausted ineffective

assistance of counsel claim , which must first be raised in a motion to reopen before

the BIA

. See Tijani v. Hold er

, 628 F.3d 1071

, 1080 (9th Cir. 20 10 ) ( “ We lack

jurisdiction to review legal c laims not presented in an alien’ s administrative

proceedings before the BIA

. ” ) ; Liu v. Waters , 55 F.3d 421, 424 (9th Cir. 1995) (“A

petitioner must make a motion for the BIA to reopen before we will hold that he

has exhausted his [ineffective assistance of counsel] claims .” ).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.