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

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1075/2004

of 7 June 2004         

establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 of 21 December 1994 on detailed rules for the application of the import arrangements for fruit and vegetables (1), and in particular Article 4(1) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The standard import values referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 shall be fixed as indicated in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 8 June 2004.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 7 June 2004.

For the Commission

J. M. SILVA RODRÍGUEZ            

Agriculture Director-General

----

(1)OJ L 337, 24.12.1994, p. 66. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1947/2002 (OJ L 299, 1.11.2002, p. 17).

----

ANNEX

to the Commission Regulation of 7 June 2004 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

----

(1)  Country nomenclature as fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2081/2003 (OJ L 313, 28.11.2003, p. 11). Code ‘            999            ’ stands for ‘of other origin’.

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1997
<CASH>                                           2,606
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,606
<PP&E>                                          73,781
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  76,387
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       137,000
<OTHER-SE>                                    (60,613)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    76,387
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                18,146
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                42,855
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (24,709)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (24,709)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (24,709)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 206 (Wednesday, October 26, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 61880]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21475]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Public Meeting of the President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax 
Reform

AGENCY: Department of the Treasury.

ACTION: Change in meeting date and time.

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

SUMMARY: This notice advises all interested persons of a change in the 
date and time of a public meeting of the President's Advisory Panel on 
Federal Tax Reform.

DATES: The meeting previously scheduled for Thursday, October 27, 2005, 
and announced in 70 FR 59394 (October 12, 2005), has been rescheduled 
for Monday, October 31, 2005. The meeting will be held via 
teleconference and will begin at 2:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. This 
time may be subject to change. Interested parties will be able to 
listen to the meeting. Call-in information and updated time information 
will be posted on the Panel's Web site, http://www.taxreformpanel.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Panel staff at (202) 927-2TAX 
(927-2829) (not a toll-free call) or e-mail [email protected] 
(please do not send comments to this box). Additional information is 
available at http://www.taxreformpanel.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Purpose: The October 31 meeting is the thirteenth meeting of the 
Advisory Panel. Due to exceptional circumstances concerning scheduling, 
this Notice is being published at this time. At this meeting, the Panel 
will finalize any remaining matters that may be pending before the 
Panel.
    Comments: Interested parties are invited to call into the 
teleconference to listen to the meeting; however, no public comments 
will be heard at the meeting. Any written comments with respect to this 
meeting may be mailed to The President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax 
Reform, 1440 New York Avenue NW., Suite 2100, Washington, DC 20220. All 
written comments will be made available to the public.
    Records: Records are being kept of Advisory Panel proceedings and 
will be available at the Internal Revenue Service's FOIA Reading Room 
at 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 1621, Washington, DC 20024. The 
Reading Room is open to the public from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday 
through Friday except holidays. The public entrance to the reading room 
is on Pennsylvania Avenue between 10th and 12th streets. The phone 
number is (202) 622-5164 (not a toll-free number). Advisory Panel 
documents, including meeting announcements, agendas, and minutes, will 
also be available on http://www.taxreformpanel.gov.

    Dated: October 24, 2005.
Mark S. Kaizen,
Designated Federal Officer.
[FR Doc. 05-21475 Filed 10-25-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4811-37-P
```
ACCEPTED 12-14-00128-CR TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS 1/26/2015 1:06:18 PM CATHY LUSK CLERK
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

D.J., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, VITILAS “VITO”

REID POST OFFICE, Normandy, MO, Employer 

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0799

Issued: July 23, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On April 29, 2021 appellant through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a March 19, 2021

merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the 

Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 21-0799.

In a letter dated June 21, 2021, counsel requested that the appeal be dismissed.

The Board has duly considered the matter and concludes that counsel’s request for the 

dismissal of the appeal should be granted. Accordingly, 

 

1

In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no claim for a fee for legal 

or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). 

No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board. Id. An attorney or 

representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, subject to fine or 

imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of fees to a 

representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation.
2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT appellant’s request for the dismissal of the appeal is 

granted. The appeal docketed as No. 21-0799 is dismissed.

Issued: July 23, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUAN EDGARDO CERNAHERNANDEZ,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 11-73001

Agency No. A072-989-416

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 13, 2012** 

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

Juan Edgardo Cerna-Hernandez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions

pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal

from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum,

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture

FILED

NOV 19 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-73001

(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial

evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse

credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act, Shrestha v. Holder, 590

F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination

based on the significant discrepancy between Cerna-Hernandez’s prior asylum

application and the one he filed in 2011 regarding the basis of his claim. See

Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Material alterations in the

applicant’s account of persecution are sufficient to support an adverse credibility

finding.”). The agency reasonably rejected Cerna-Hernandez’s explanations for the

discrepancy. See id. at 974. In the absence of credible testimony, CernaHernandez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v.

Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Because Cerna-Hernandez’s CAT claim is based on the same statements

found not credible, and the record does not otherwise compel the finding that it is

more likely than not that he will be tortured if returned to El Salvador, his CAT

claim also fails. See id. at 1156-57.

Finally, we do not consider the materials Cerna-Hernandez submitted in his

“Supplement in Support of Petition for Review and Stay of Removal.” See Fisher
3 11-73001

v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (this court’s review is limited to

the administrative record).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Exhibit
32.2














CERTIFICATION
OF CO-CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


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 Annual Report of AFP Imaging Corporation (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Donald Rabinovitch, Co-Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 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.











/s/       Donald
Rabinovitch








Donald
Rabinovitch,


President


(Co-Principal
Executive Officer)


October
14, 2008




37
#### CLEVELAND H. ARMSTRONG, Appellant, v. WARDEN, NEVADA STATE PRISON, Respondent.

No. 6978

January 16, 1974

518 P.2d 147

*Gary A. Sheerin,*State Public Defender, for Appellant.

*Robert List,*Attorney General, Carson City; *Robert E. Rose,*District Attorney, and *Kathleen M. Wall,*Assistant Chief Deputy District Attorney, Washoe County, for Respondent.

*9OPINION

By the Court,

Thompson, C. J.:

By reason of guilty pleas the appellant stands convicted of grand larceny and robbery and presently is serving concurrent sentences therefor at the Nevada State Prison. He asks that we annul those judgments and sentences on the ground that appropriate inquiry regarding his waiver of constitutional trial rights was not made when his guilty pleas were accepted.

Prior to our recent opinion, Heffley v. Warden, 89 Nev. 573, 516 P.2d 1403 (1973), we had construed Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969), to require the trial court specifically to ascertain whether the defendant knows that if he pleads guilty he thereby waives his privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, the right to trial by jury and the right to confront his accusers. Stocks v. Warden, 86 Nev. 758, 476 P.2d 469 (1970); Higby v. Sheriff, 86 Nev. 774, 476 P.2d 959 (1970); Brown v. Warden, 88 Nev. 166, 494 P.2d 959 (1972). Such specific inquiry was deemed essential to the fundamental determination of whether the defendant entered his plea voluntarily and understandingly.

In *Heffley,*supra, we departed from our prior rulings and joined with a growing body of case authority which accords *Boykin*a more ample interpretation than had we. Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970); United States v. Sherman, 474 F.2d 303 (9th Cir. 1973); Stinson v. Turner, 473 F.2d 913 (10th Cir. 1973); McChesney v. Henderson, 482 F.2d 1101 (5th Cir. 1973); Merrill v. State, 206 N.W.2d 828 (S.Dak. 1973). Specifically we held in *Heffley,*supra, that the trial court’s failure to refer to the accused’s privilege against self-incrimination before accepting a guilty plea did not invalidate the plea. That precise issue is presented in this case with *10regard to the appellant’s plea of guilty to robbery and is controlled by *Heffley.*

The court’s inquiry of the appellant when he pleaded guilty to grand larceny failed to refer to any of the three trial rights mentioned in *Boykin.*However, the canvass otherwise is adequate to show a voluntary and intelligent plea entered with a full understanding of its consequences. In line with McChesney v. Henderson, supra, and the reasoning of *Heffley,*we conclude that there need not be an express articulation and waiver of the three constitutional trial rights mentioned in *Boykin*when a defendant who is represented by counsel pleads guilty and it appears from the record that his plea was voluntarily and intelligently entered with knowledge of. its consequences.

However, we reiterate the statement in *Heffley*that “the criteria of *Higby*remain suitable as a guideline for our courts to follow.”

Each conviction is affirmed.

Mowbray, Gunderson, Batjer, and Zenoff, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Humphrey P. Polanen, Chief Executive Officer of Sand Hill IT Security Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge: 

 

|   | • |   | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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 Company. |
|--------|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Date: August 15, 2005

 

/s/ Humphrey P. Polanen

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

Humphrey P. Polanen

Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 205 (Tuesday, October 25, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61691-61692]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21304]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board


Release of Waybill Data

    The Surface Transportation Board has received a request from Sidley 
Austin Brown & Wood LLP on behalf of Norfolk Southern Railway Company 
(WB610--October 17, 2005) for permission to use certain data from the 
Board's Carload Waybill Samples. A copy of the request may be obtained 
from the Office of Economics, Environmental Analysis, and 
Administration.
    The waybill sample contains confidential railroad and shipper data; 
therefore, if any parties object to these requests, they should file 
their objections with the Director of the Board's Office of Economics, 
Environmental Analysis, and Administration within 14 calendar days of 
the date of this notice. The rules for release of waybill data are 
codified at 49 CFR 1244.9.

[[Page 61692]]

    Contact: Mac Frampton, (202) 565-1541.

Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-21304 Filed 10-24-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
CASEY GOODSON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-5593

_____________________________/

Opinion filed September 14, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Kevin J. Carroll, Judge.

Jeffrey E. Lewis, Regional Counsel, and Michael Jerome Titus, Assistant Regional 

Conflict Counsel, Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, 

Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

RAY, KELSEY, and WINOKUR, JJ., CONCUR.
<Page>

                                                                ARTHUR ANDERSEN


                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
                    -----------------------------------------

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the use of our reports
(and to all references to our Firm) included in or made a part of this
Registration Statement File No. 33-86330 for Hartford Life and Annuity Insurance
Company Separate Account Six on Form N-4.

Hartford, Connecticut                                   /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
April 8, 2002
#### IN THE MATTER OF ROSA LEE MOSTELLA

No. 7410DC1002

(Filed 7 May 1975)

Insane Persons § 1— involuntary commitment — sufficiency of findings

The involuntary commitment of a prison inmate to a State mental hospital was supported by the court’s finding that she suffers from mental illness resulting in her refusal to eat which makes her imminently dangerous to herself. G.S. 122-58.8 (b).

Appeal by respondent from *Barnette, Judge.*Order entered 30 August 1974 in District Court, Wake County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 13 February 1975.

This is a proceeding in involuntary commitment instituted pursuant to G.S. 122-58.3 and 122-85 (a) against respondent Rosa Lee Mostella, an inmate at the North Carolina Correctional Center for Women. From the order of the district court committing her to Dorothea Dix Hospital for a period of ninety days, respondent appealed to this Court.

*Attorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Parks H. Ieenhour, for the State.*

*Lawrence D. Spears, Special Counsel for Mentally III, Dorothea Dix Hospital, for respondent appellant.*

ARNOLD, Judge.

The order of involuntary commitment was entered on 30 August 1974. Respondent entered the hospital on 3 September 1974 and was discharged on 30 September 1974. Before her appeal was perfected, however, she was returned to Women’s Prison where she is serving a 24-26 year sentence for second degree murder. We agree with the discussion and holding in *In re Carter*(No. 7415DC888, N. C. Court of Appeals, filed 16 April 1975), with respect to whether the questions raised on appeal are moot. We, therefore, proceed to a consideration of this case on its merits.

The question before us is whether the district court found, as required by G.S. 122-58.8 (b), “by clear, cogent and convincing evidence that the respondent is mentally ill or inebriate, and is imminently dangerous to himself or others . . . . ” Upon a *667careful review of the record, we are of the opinion that the requirements of the statute have been met.

Mary Rowe, correctional officer at Women’s Prison, testified that she had observed respondent for nine days and that she refused to eat because she thought the prison staff was trying to poison her. Respondent also refused to wear clothing or take showers. The report of the examining psychiatrist, Ralph H. Massengill, Jr., M.D., concluded that respondent was of imminent danger to herself and unable because of mental illness (schizophrenic paranoid type vs. paranoid state) “to provide for basic personal needs for food, clothing, or shelter.” This report and testimony at the hearing support the court’s findings that respondent suffers from mental illness resulting in her refusal to eat which makes her imminently dangerous to herself.

The order of the trial court is

Affirmed.

Judges Britt and Morris concur.