alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2007018EN.01000801.xml

| 25.1.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 18/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 18/8

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 56/2007

of 24 January 2007

determining the extent to which the applications for import licences lodged during the first 15 days of January 2007 for butter originating in New Zealand under quota numbers 09.4195 and 09.4182 can be accepted

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 of 14 December 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 as regards the import arrangements for milk and milk products and opening tariff quotas (2), and in particular Article 35a(3) thereof,

Whereas:

Applications for import licences, lodged from 1 to 15 January 2007 for butter originating in New Zealand under quotas numbers 09.4195 and 09.4182 referred to in Annex IIIA to Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 and notified to the Commission by 18 January 2007, concern quantities greater than those available. Allocation coefficients should therefore be fixed for the quantities applied for,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Applications for import licences for butter originating in New Zealand under the quota numbers 09.4195 and 09.4182 lodged pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 from 1 to 15 January 2007 and notified to the Commission by 18 January 2007 shall be accepted subject to the application of the allocation coefficients set out in the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

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

Done at Brussels, 24 January 2007.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 48. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1913/2005 (OJ L 307, 25.11.2005, p. 2).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 341, 22.12.2001, p. 29. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2020/2006 (OJ L 384, 29.12.2006, p. 54).

2

---

ANNEX

| Quota number | Allocation coefficient |
| --- | --- |
| 09.4195 | 25,491717  % |
| 09.4182 | 100  % |

Quota number

Allocation coefficient

09.4195

25,491717  %

09.4182

100  %

---
#### THEO FIELD BURDICK, Executrix of the Estate of MARY EMELINE POPE, and the ESTATE OF MARY EMELINE POPE, Appellant, v. WALTER N. POPE, Executor of the Estate of FRANK W. POPE, and DORIS V. DENNIS, Respondents.

No. 6934

January 17, 1974

518 P.2d 146

*Virgil A. Bucchianeri,*of Carson City, for Appellant.

*Kermitt L. Waters,*of Las Vegas, and *Richard G. Edwards,*of Carson City, for Respondents.

*29OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

Mary Emeline and Frank W. Pope were married on October 22, 1955. On January 25, 1956, William F. Skidmore conveyed a parcel of real property located adjacent to U.S. Highway 50 in Ormsby County [now Carson City], Nevada, to “Mary E. Johnson Pope, a married woman,” with a recitation in the deed that it was to be “her sole and separate property.”

Mary Emeline Pope died on January 3, 1964. Under the terms of her will, she bequeathed the sum of $2,500.00 to her husband, Frank W. Pope. The residue of the estate was left to her daughter, Theo Field Burdick, the appellant. Frank Pope died in 1967, and the respondents brought an action for declaratory relief requesting that the parcel located on U.S. Highway 50 be declared community property and that an undivided one-half interest be set over as a part of the estate of Frank W. Pope, deceased.

The trial court found the parcel to be community property and ordered that it be equally divided between the two estates. This appeal followed.

The only evidence in the record that might tend to support the appellant’s contention that the parcel of real property was Mrs. Pope’s separate property is the recitation in the deed that it was conveyed to her as “her sole and separate property.” All the other evidence in the record amounts to either surmise or conjecture.

Properties acquired during marriage are presumed to be community property,1 and the presumption can only be overcome by clear and certain proof. Todkill v. Todkill, 88 Nev. *30231, 495 P.2d 629 (1972); see Carlson v. McCall, 70 Nev. 437, 271 P.2d 1002 (1954); Lake v. Bender, 18 Nev. 361, 7 P. 74 (1884).

Appellant has presented no authority and we have found none which would support her contention that the words “her sole and separate property” written in the deed are sufficient to overcome the presumption that this parcel acquired during coverture, was community property.

We believe that the phrase “her sole and separate property” standing alone, without supporting evidence, is not the clear and certain proof required to overcome the presumption.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

1

NRS 123.130: “1. All property of the wife owned by her before marriage, and that acquired by her afterwards by gift, bequest, devise or descent, with the rents, issues and profits thereof, is her separate property.

“2. All property of the husband owned by him before marriage, and that acquired by him afterwards by gift, bequest, devise or descent, with the rents, issues and profits thereof, is his separate property.”

NRS 123.220: “All property, other than that stated in NRS 123.130, acquired after marriage by either husband or wife, or both, except as provided in NRS 123.180 and 123.190, is community property.”
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
from the consolidated balance sheets and consolidated statements
of operations of the Company's Form 10-Q, and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                              33
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      474
<ALLOWANCES>                                        22
<INVENTORY>                                        485
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  1113
<PP&E>                                            1487
<DEPRECIATION>                                     659
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    3425
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             1141
<BONDS>                                            541
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         11
<COMMON>                                            87
<OTHER-SE>                                         979
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      3425
<SALES>                                           1955
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  1955
<CGS>                                             1093
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     1724
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  55
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    211
<INCOME-TAX>                                        69
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                142
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       142
<EPS-BASIC>                                     2.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.04


</TABLE>
#### STATE v. RIGGSBEE

No. 55 PC.

Case below: 30 N.C. App. 597.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 4 November 1976.
# C_2007102EN.01000201.xml

| 5.5.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 102/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 102/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4631 — Carlyle Riverstone Global Energy & Power Fund III/First Reserve)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 102/03)

On 27 April 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4631. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4631. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
#### STATE v. MITCHUM

No. 25 PC.

Case below: 17 N.C. App. 372.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 2 April 1973.
#### John R. Ivimey, Sr. *v.*Town of Watertown et al.

*John R. Ivimey, Sr.,*pro se, in support of the petition.

*Charles D. Stauffacher,*in opposition.

Decided May 17, 1993

The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 30 Conn. App. 742 (AC 11276), is denied.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6253

GEORGE LUTHER COOK, III, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus J. KEELING, Former Assistant Warden-Programs;MS. MCWATERS, Head Nurse/Hospital Administrator, Indian Creek Correctional Center; DOCTORIBARRA, Chief Doctor, Indian Creek Correctional Center, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-97-1008-2) Submitted: July 22, 1998 Decided: August 6, 1998 Before ERVIN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George Luther Cook, III, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: George Luther Cook, III, appeals the district court’s order dismissing his action under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) for Cook’s failure to pay a partial filing fee. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(b)(1) (West Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Cook v. Keeling , No. CA-97-1008-2 (E.D. Va. Jan 26, 1998). 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.

AFFIRMED
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

F.R., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, WESTBURY POST 

OFFICE, Houston, TX, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0858

Issued: June 3, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On May 14, 2022 appellant filed an appeal from an October 19, 2021 merit decision of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards

assigned Docket No. 22-0858.

The Board has duly considered the matter and notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

review final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’Compensation Act.1 

For final adverse decisions of OWCP issued on or after November 19, 2008, the Board’s review 

authority is limited to appeals which are filed within 180 days from the date of issuance of OWCP’s 

decision.2

The 180th day following the October 19, 2021 decision was April 17, 2022. As appellant 

did not file an appeal with the Board until May 14, 2022, more than 180 days after the October 19, 

2021 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 22-0858 is untimely filed. 

The Board is without jurisdiction to review the appeal. Appellant has not offered a reason to 

explain the failure to timely file an appeal with supporting documentation sufficient to establish 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8149; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a) (2009).

2

Id. at § 501.3(e).
2

compelling circumstances. Because there is no final adverse decision issued by OWCP within 180 

days of the filing of the instant appeal, the Board concludes that the appeal docketed as No. 22 -

0858, must be dismissed.3 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 22-0858 is dismissed.

Issued: June 3, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

3 The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date of their issuance.” 20 

C.F.R. § 501.6(d).
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



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Timberline Resources Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended December 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Randal Hardy, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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.



Date: February 10, 2012

| |                                                                                                                      
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | By:   /s/ Randal Hardy
_____________________________
Randal Hardy
Chief Financial Officer
Principal Financial Officer





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.













1
#### James C. De Groff, Respondent, *v.*Antonio Pansini et al., Appellants.

*De Groff*v. *Pansini,*173 App. Div. 905, affirmed.

(Argued November 13, 1918;

decided December 3, 1918.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered March 20, 1916, affirming a judgment in favor *721of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term in an action to foreclose a mortgage upon real property. The action was brought to foreclose a past-due purchase-money mortgage upon real property given by the defendant Antonio Pansini to the plaintiff to secure payment of a bond in the principal sum of $2,600. Jennie Pansini and the Title Guarantee and Trust Company were joined as defendants, the former being the wife of the mortgagor in possession,'and the latter being the record holder of a mortgage upon said property executed and recorded subsequent to the mortgage under foreclosure. The defendants admit in their answers the execution of the bond and mortgage and the recording of the mortgage, but deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the delivery of the bond and mortgage, deny the allegation of nonpayment, and set up an affirmative defense of payment and satisfaction of the mortgage.

*Lynn C. Norris*and *Edward M. Perry*for appellants.

*Frederick S. Martyn*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Chase, Collin, Cuddeback, Hogan, McLaughlin and Crane, JJ.
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

K.S., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, BOGGS ROAD POST 

OFFICE, Duluth, GA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0335

Issued: September 15, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On January 4, 2022 appellant filed an appeal from a December 23, 2021 merit decision of 

the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards

assigned Docket No. 22-0335.

By letter received by the Board on April 18, 2022, appellant requested that the appeal be 

withdrawn to enable her to request reconsideration before OWCP.

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

withdrawal of her appeal should be granted. Accordingly,
2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT appellant’s request for the withdrawal of her appeal 

is granted. The appeal docketed as No. 22-0335 is dismissed.

Issued: September 15, 2022

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
#### Dianne K. FRANKLIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 05-5021.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

March 16, 2005.

ORDER

The appellant having failed to file the brief required by Federal Circuit Rule 31(a) within the time permitted by the rules, it is

*1001ORDERED that the notice of appeal be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in accordance with the rules.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5545 Engrossed in House (EH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5545

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To deauthorize a portion of the project for navigation, Potomac River, 
Washington Channel, District of Columbia, under the jurisdiction of the 
                          Corps of Engineers.

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

SECTION 1. PROJECT FOR NAVIGATION, WASHINGTON CHANNEL, DISTRICT OF 
              COLUMBIA.

    Upon the date of enactment of this Act, the following portion of 
the project for navigation, Potomac River, Washington Channel, District 
of Columbia, authorized by the Act of August 30, 1935 (chapter 831; 49 
Stat. 1028) is deauthorized: Beginning at Washington Harbor Channel 
Geometry Centerline of the 400-foot-wide main navigational ship 
channel, Centerline Station No. 103+73.12, coordinates North 441948.20, 
East 1303969.30, as stated and depicted on the Condition Survey 
Anacostia, Virginia, Washington and Magazine Bar Shoal Channels, 
Washington, D.C., Sheet 6 of 6, prepared by the United States Army 
Corps of Engineers, Baltimore district, July 2007; thence departing the 
aforementioned centerline traveling the following courses and 
distances: N. 40 degrees 10 minutes 45 seconds E., 200.00 feet to a 
point, on the outline of said 400-foot-wide channel thence binding on 
said outline the following three courses and distances: S. 49 degrees 
49 minutes 15 seconds E., 1,507.86 feet to a point, thence; S. 29 
degrees 44 minutes 42 seconds E., 2,083.17 feet to a point, thence; S. 
11 degrees 27 minutes 04 seconds E., 363.00 feet to a point, thence; S. 
78 degrees 32 minutes 56 seconds W., 200.00 feet to a point binding on 
the centerline of the 400-foot-wide main navigational channel at 
computed Centerline Station No. 65+54.31, coordinates North 
438923.9874, East 1306159.9738, thence; continuing with the 
aforementioned centerline the following courses and distances: N. 11 
degrees 27 minutes 04 seconds W., 330.80 feet to a point, Centerline 
Station No. 68+85.10, thence; N. 29 degrees 44 minutes 42 seconds W., 
2,015.56 feet to a point, Centerline Station No. 89+00.67, thence; N. 
49 degrees 49 minutes 15 seconds W., 1,472.26 feet to the point of 
beginning, such area in total containing a computed area of 777,284 
square feet or 17.84399 acres of riparian water way.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 20, 2010.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
111th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 5545

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To deauthorize a portion of the project for navigation, Potomac River, 
Washington Channel, District of Columbia, under the jurisdiction of the 
                          Corps of Engineers.
```