alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 173 (Thursday, September 8, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 53361]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-17813]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Ocean Transportation Intermediary License Applicants

    Notice is hereby given that the following applicants have filed 
with the Federal Maritime Commission an application for license as a 
Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carrier and Ocean Freight Forwarder--Ocean 
Transportation Intermediary pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act 
of 1984 as amended (46 U.S.C. app. 1718 and 46 CFR 515).
    Persons knowing of any reason why the following applicants should 
not receive a license are requested to contact the Office of 
Transportation Intermediaries, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, 
DC 20573.

Non-Vessel--Operating Common Carrier Ocean Transportation Intermediary 
Applicants:
    Rucky International Company, 149 Isabelle Street, Metuchen, NJ 
08840. Officer: Amarasena Anura Rupasinghe, President, (Qualifying 
Individual).
    Fast Track Everlast Shipping & Delivery, 5406 Park Heights Avenue, 
Baltimore, MD 21215, Montgomery Davson, Sole Proprietor.
    Miriam Family Cargo Inc., 18 NW. 12th Avenue, Miami, FL 33128. 
Officers: Miriam Bennett, President, (Qualifying Individual), Randy 
Bennett, Vice President.
    International Specialists Worldwide Moving, Inc., 8227 Oak Street, 
Suite A, New Orleans, LA 70118. Officers: Joseph L. Williams, Vice 
President, (Qualifying Individual), Gaylen Harris, President.
    K.C. Consulting, Inc., 36565 Nathan Hale Drive, Lake Villa, IL 
60046. Officer: Kazimierz Chudecki, President, (Qualifying Individual).
Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carrier and Ocean Freight Forwarder 
Transportation Intermediary Applicants:
    DFYoung-Del Med, Inc., 1235 West Lakes Drive, Suite 255, Berwyn, PA 
19312-2401. Officers: Aaron Wesley Wyatt, IV, Vice President, 
(Qualifying Individual), John Hardy, President.
    Jam'n International Cargo Inc., 3414 South Garfield Avenue, 
Commerce, CA 90040. Officers: Jon Winston Liu, Vice Pres. Of 
Operations, (Qualifying Individual), John Watkins, President.
    Customs & Logistics International, Inc. dba Customs & Logistics 
Ocean Lines, 85555 NW. 36th Street, Suite 115, Miami, FL 33166. 
Officer: Carlos A. Francisco, President, (Qualifying Individual).
Ocean Freight Forwarder--Ocean Transportation Intermediary Applicants:
    Via Mat International (USA) Inc., 130 Sheridan Blvd., Inwood, NY 
11096. Officers: Joachim (Joe) Nuebling, President, (Qualifying 
Individual), Victor Moser, Director.
    Carlos Trucks & Parts dba Carmen's Cargo, 8235 Pillot Drive, 
Houston, TX 77029, Carmen E. Botero, Sole Proprietor.

    Dated: September 2, 2005.
Bryant L. VanBrakle,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-17813 Filed 9-7-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-40859

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ROBERT E. NOLEN,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

--------------------

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

WIENER, Circuit Judge:

Before us following our second remand to the district court is that court’s

Order on Remand filed August 7, 2008, in which, following a hearing attended

by counsel for the government in person and by Defendant-Appellant via

telephone after waiving attendance in person and waiving representation by

counsel, the district court ordered restitution reimposed in the amount of

$223,509. We have again reviewed the record on appeal, the filings of the

parties, and the ruling of the district court on remand, as a result of which we

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 25, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
2

are satisfied that the proceeding in the district court satisfied the requirements

of due process and that the court’s reimposition of the restitution element of its

sentence is appropriate in all respects. Accordingly, Nolen’s sentence, including

restitution of $223,509, is

AFFIRMED.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-20515

Summary Calendar

GREGORY D JOHNSON

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

RONALD L KELLY

Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:02-CV-344

Before KING, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gregory D. Johnson, Texas inmate # 652074, appeals the district court’s

grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant Ronald L. Kelly and the

dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Johnson argues that the district

court erred in its findings and conclusions on remand regarding Kelly’s intent

to retaliate. We review a grant of summary judgment de novo using the same

standard used by the district court. Amburgey v. Corhart Refractories Corp., 936

F.2d 805, 809 (5th Cir. 1991). 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 20, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-20515

Johnson has not addressed the district court’s conclusions that he failed

to show two other required elements for a valid retaliation claim: an adverse act

and causation. See Morris v. Powell, 449 F.3d 682, 684 (5th Cir. 2006).

Therefore, he has abandoned any challenge to the district court’s conclusions

regarding these elements. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff

Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Although pro se briefs are afforded

liberal construction, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), even pro se

litigants must brief arguments in order to preserve them. Yohey v. Collins, 985

F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). 

Johnson’s motion for appointment of appellate counsel is denied. See

Richardson v. Henry, 902 F.2d 414, 417 (5th Cir. 1990).

Johnson’s appeal is without arguable merit and therefore frivolous. See

Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is

frivolous, it is dismissed. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. The dismissal of this appeal as

frivolous counts as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v.

Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Johnson is cautioned that if he

accumulates three strikes, he will no longer be allowed to proceed in forma

pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained

in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.

See § 1915(g). 

MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING

ISSUED.
# CE2004088EN.01060102.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/601 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/601

---

(2004/C 88 E/0616)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0979/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(27 March 2003)

Subject:   Use of funds from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Carrara

Subject:

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Carrara, urgently need to use European funds to enhance the common cultural area in all its diversity and respecting all its traditions, nurturing creativity and professional mobility, and promoting access to and dissemination of art and culture,

can the Commission state:

| 1. | whether the municipality of Carrara has submitted projects for the Culture 2000 programme? |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether the municipality of Carrara has submitted projects for the Culture 2000 programme?

| 2. | whether the municipality of Carrara has secured funding for these projects? |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether the municipality of Carrara has secured funding for these projects?

| 3. | whether this funding has been used? |
| --- | --- |

3.

whether this funding has been used?

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7036

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

RONALD ELZEY, a/k/a Duff,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District 

Judge. (1:09-cr-00288-WDQ-11; 1:12-cv-01823-WDQ)

Submitted: August 29, 2013 Decided: September 4, 2013

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald Elzey, Appellant Pro Se. Antonio J. Reynolds, OFFICE OF 

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Ronald Elzey seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) 

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 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) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Elzey 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 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
OASIS GOODTIME EMPORIUM I, INC. et al. v. CITY OF DORAVILLE.

S17A0421

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Decided: March 20, 2017

Alan I. Begner, Cory Goldsmith Begner, Eric A. Coffelt, Begner & Begner, P.C., 5180 Roswell Road, South Building, Suite 100, Atlanta, Georgia 30342, Linda I. Dunlavy, Dunlavy Law Group, LLC, 1026 B Atlanta Avenue, Decatur, Georgia 30030, George Brian Spears, G. Brian Spears, P.C., 1126 Ponce de Leon Avenue, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30306, for Appellant.

Scott Dean Bergthold, Bryan A. Dykes, Law Office of Scott D. Bergthold, PLLC, 2290 Ogletree Ave., Suite 106, Chattanooga, Tennessee 37421, Cecil Guy McLendon, Jr., Leonid Michael Felgin, Riley McLendon, LLC, 315 Washington Avenue, Marietta, Georgia 30060, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed without opinion pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 59.

Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification

Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, David E. Hooston hereby certifies as follows:



| | 1. | He is the duly appointed Chief Financial Officer of Placer Sierra Bancshares, a California corporation (the Company).
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on his knowledge, the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006, and to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.2 (the
Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, the undersigned has set his hand hereto as of this 8th day of August 2006.



|                      |  |                                         
|--------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------
|                      |  | PLACER SIERRA BANCSHARES                
|                      | 
|Dated: August 8, 2006 |  | /S/    DAVID E.
HOOSTON                 
|                      |  | David E. Hooston Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

The following statement is provided by the undersigned to accompany the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2010 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed filed pursuant to any provision of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or any other securities law.

Each of the undersigned certifies that the foregoing Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a), or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Sensus (Bermuda 2) Ltd. and Sensus USA Inc.



|                |  |                                             |  |          |  |                                            
|--------------- |  | ------------------------------------------- |  | -------- |  | -------------------------------------------
|/s/ PETER MAINZ |  | /s/ JEFFREY J. KYLE                        
|Name:           |  | Peter Mainz                                 |  | Name:    |  | Jeffrey J. Kyle                            
|Title:          |  | Chief Executive Officer & President         |  | Title:   |  | Chief Financial Officer                    
|Company:        |  | Sensus (Bermuda 2) Ltd. and Sensus USA Inc. |  | Company: |  | Sensus (Bermuda 2) Ltd. and Sensus USA Inc.
|Date:           |  | December 17, 2010                           |  | Date:    |  | December 17, 2010
**
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Salesh Balak, certify that: 

 

1.   I have reviewed this report on Form10-Q/A of Universal Biosensors, Inc.; and

2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.

Date: May 1, 2020 

 
/s/ Salesh BalakSalesh BalakInterim Principal Executive OfficerUniversal Biosensors, Inc.**
STATE of North Carolina v. Susan Annette ALLEN

No. 19P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 16, 2017

Ryan McKaig, Attorney at Law, for Allen, Susan Annette.

*295Teresa L. Townsend, Assistant Attorney General, Mike Miller, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 11th of January 2017 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of March 2017."
# C_2010080EN.01002301.xml

| 27.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 80/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 80/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2010 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

(Case T-340/07) (1)

1

(Arbitration clause - ‘eContent’ programme - Contract relating to a project designed to ensure maximum effectiveness of the programme and the widest possible participation of target groups - Non-performance of the contract - Termination of the contract)

2010/C 80/39

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

Appellant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve, Agent, assisted by D. Philippe and M. Gouden, lawyers)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought under Articles 235 EC, 238 EC and 288 EC for an order that the Commission make good damage suffered as a result of its failure to comply with contractual obligations in the context of the performance of the EDC-53007 EEBO/27873 contract relating to the project entitled ‘e-Content Exposure and Business Opportunities’.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.

1

---
1673.

#### Harris *v.*The State.

Indictment for assault and battery, from Catoosa superior court — Judge Eite. December 19, 1908.

Submitted March 9,

Decided March 16, 1909.

*William E. Mann,*for plaintiff in error.

*Thomas C. Milner, solicitor-general, Sam P. Maddox,*contra.

Hill, C. J.

The assignments of error are without substantial merit, and the verdict is supported by the evidence. *Judgment aifirm,ed.*
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-51179

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:06-CR-633-ALL

Before KING, BARKSDALE, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Francisco Rodriguez has moved for

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967). Rodriguez has filed a response. Our independent review

ofthe record, counsel’s brief, and Rodriguez’s response discloses no nonfrivolous

issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 22, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
---

---

EXHIBIT 14.2

Grant Thornton

# Consent of Independent
Auditors

We have issued our report dated
January 30, 2007 accompanying the financial statements of Pointer Localizacion Y
Asistencia S.A appearing in the Annual Report of Pointer Telocation Ltd. included in this
Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 20-F/A for the year ended December 31,
2006.

We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statements of Pointer
Telocation Ltd., on Form F-3 (File No. 333-111019 effective October 13, 2004, File No.
333-119998, effective November 17, 2004, File No. 333-126257, effective July 15, 2005 and
File No. 333-143-399) and on Form S-8 (File No. 333-118897, effective September 10,
2004 and File No. 333-113420, effective March 9, 2004).

| | /s/
Grant Thornton Argentina S.C.
| | ---------------------------------

Buenos Aires, Argentina
July 27, 2007



---

---
Unassociated Document









Exhibit 10.3


 




JOINDER TO


REGISTRATION RIGHTS AGREEMENT







This Joinder to Registration Rights Agreement (“Joinder”) is made on this ________, 2010 (the “Effective Date”) by  ________________ (“Investor”).







WHEREAS, as of the date hereof, Applied DNA Sciences, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) has issued and sold to Investor in a private placement transaction (the “Offering”) a senior secured convertible note (the “Investor Note”), which may be convertible into shares of the Company’s common stock, $0.001 par value  per share (the “Common Stock”) in accordance with the terms of the Investor Note;







WHEREAS, as part of the Offering, Investor will become a party to that certain Registration Rights Agreement dated as of July 15, 2010 among the Company and the Buyers signatory thereto (the “Registration Rights Agreement”).







NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, the parties hereto agree as follows:


 


1.           Joinder to Registration Rights Agreement.  Investor hereby agrees to be become a party to and to be bound by all of the terms and provisions of the Registration Rights Agreement as a Buyer (as defined in the Registration Rights Agreement) for all purposes thereunder.  In addition, the Investor Note will be deemed to be a “Note” (as defined in the Registration Rights Agreement) and the Common Stock into which the Investor Note may be converted pursuant to its terms will be deemed to be “Conversion Shares” (as defined in the Registration Rights Agreement).


 


2.           Applicable Law. This Joinder will be construed in accordance with, and the rights of the parties governed by, the laws of the State of New York, without regard to the choice of law provisions thereof.


 


3.           Counterparts; Incorporation.  This Joinder may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument.  The recitals to this Joinder are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part hereof for all purposes.




[Remainder of page intentionally left blank]




 




  





  











  







Exhibit 10.3




 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Joinder as of the date first above written.


 




	  	  
	  	
[INVESTOR]


	  	  
	  	  
	  	
By:_________________________________


	  	
Name:


	  	
Title:









 


 


AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED:


 


 


APPLIED DNA SCIENCES, INC.,


a Delaware corporation


 


By:_____________________________


Dr. James A. Hayward


President and Chief Executive Officer