alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2011307EN.01000601.xml

| 19.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 307/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 307/6

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

2011/C 307/05

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

1

| Date and time of closure | 13.8.2011 |
| --- | --- |
| Duration | 13.8.2011-31.12.2011 |
| Member State | Belgium |
| Stock or Group of stocks | HKE/8ABDE. |
| Species | Hake (Merluccius merluccius) |
| Zone | VIIIa, VIIIb, VIIId and VIIIe |
| Type(s) of fishing vessels | — |
| Reference number | 870462 |

Date and time of closure

13.8.2011

Duration

13.8.2011-31.12.2011

Member State

Belgium

Stock or Group of stocks

HKE/8ABDE.

Species

Hake (Merluccius merluccius)

Merluccius merluccius

Zone

VIIIa, VIIIb, VIIId and VIIIe

Type(s) of fishing vessels

—

Reference number

870462

Web link to the decision of the Member State:

http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/fishing_rules/tacs/index_en.htm

---

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

1

---
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

DERRICK L. WYCHE

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 4:10cv42-SPM/WCS

WALTER MCNEIL,

 

Respondent.

______________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court for consideration of the magistrate

judge’s report and recommendation (doc. 9) dated April 13, 2010. Petitioner has

filed objections (doc. 16) pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section

636(b)(1). Despite the objections, I have determined that the report and

recommendation should be adopted. 

The § 2254 petition was not filed within the one year limitations period. 

Therefore, Petitioner’s Youngblood claim is not cognizable unless he can

demonstrate that an exception to the limitations period should be applied. 

Petitioner relies on the actual innocence exception, but he has not demonstrated

“that it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have found
Page 2 of 2

petitioner guilty beyond a reasonable doubt,” which is the standard that applies. 

Johnson v. Fla. Dept. of Corr., 513 F.3d 1328, 1333-34 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting

Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 327 (1995)).. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED

as follows:

1. The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (doc. 9) is

ADOPTED and incorporated by reference in this order.

2. The § 2254 petition (doc. 1), challenging Petitioner’s 2003

conviction and sentence for robbery with a weapon and false imprisonment by

use of firearm, imposed by the Second Judicial Circuit, Leon County, is

dismissed as untimely.

DONE AND ORDERED this 12th day of May, 2010.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge

 CASE NO. 4:10cv42-SPM/WCS
#### HENRY A. MONK v. TRAVIS H. FLANAGAN, t/a GREENVILLE TOBACCO CURING COMPANY, and CHARLIE BARNES.

(Filed 24 February, 1965.)

Negligence § 24a—

Evidence that plaintiff was injured when he turned the knob on the door of a tobacco curing “pot burner” and as a result the door flew open and a blast of hot steam, scalding oil, hot ashes and soot erupted onto his right arm, *held,*insufficient to overrule nonsuit, since an inference of negligence cannot rest on conjecture or surmise, but only upon a premise established by proof.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Morris, J.,*21 September 1964 Civil Session of Pitt.

Action of tort to recover damages for personal injuries sustained when plaintiff, who was engaged in curing tobacco in a barn, turned *798the knob on the door of a tobacco curing burner, commonly referred to as a “pot burner,” and as a result the door flew open and a blast of hot steam, scalding oil and hot ashes and soot erupted from the “pot burner” onto his right hand and arm. That such explosion was allegedly caused by the negligence of Flanagan, t/a Greenville Tobacco Curing Company, acting through and. by his agent Barnes, in installing, adjusting, repairing, and changing this “pot burner” and the smokestack incident to its operation.

From a judgment of involuntary nonsuit entered at the close of plaintiff’s evidence, he appeals.

*Willis A.. Taitón for plaintiff appellant.*

*James and Speight by William C. Brewer, Jr. and W. W. Speight for defendant appellees.*

PeR CuRiam.

A critical study of plaintiff’s evidence, considered in the light most favorable to him, leads us to the conclusion that plaintiff has failed to show any actionable negligence on the part of the defendants, or either of them, resulting in his unfortunate injuries. Plaintiff has no evidence that would reasonably warrant an inference of fact' that the flying open of the door of the “pot burner” when he turned its knob, and the eruption therefrom of a blast of hot steam, scalding oil and hot ashes and soot was caused by any act of defendants. “An inference of negligence cannot rest on conjecture or surmise. [Citing authority.] This is necessarily so because an inference is a permissible conclusion drawn by reason from a premise established by proof.” *Sowers v.*Marley, 235 N.C. 607, 70 S.E. 2d 670. His evidence leaves it all in the realm of mere conjecture, surmise, and speculation, and one surmise may be as good as another. Nobody knows. “A cause of action must be something more than a guess.” *Lane v. Bryan,*246 N.C. 108, 97 S.E. 2d 411. “Any other interpretation of the law would unloose a jury to wander aimlessly in the fields of speculation.” *Poovey v. Sugar Co.,*191 N.C. 722, 133 S.E. 12. “Cases cannot be submitted to a jury on speculations, guesses or conjectures.” *Hopkins v. Comer,*240 N.C. 143, 81 S.E. 2d 368. A resort to a choice of possibilities is guesswork, not decision. *Hanrahan v. Walgreen Co.,*243 N.C. 268, 90 S.E. 2d 392.

The judgment of involuntary nonsuit is

Affirmed.
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 31 Filed 10/12/2007 Page 1 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 31 Filed 10/12/2007 Page 2 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 31 Filed 10/12/2007 Page 3 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 31 Filed 10/12/2007 Page 4 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 31 Filed 10/12/2007 Page 5 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 31 Filed 10/12/2007 Page 6 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 31 Filed 10/12/2007 Page 7 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 31 Filed 10/12/2007 Page 8 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 31 Filed 10/12/2007 Page 9 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 31 Filed 10/12/2007 Page 10 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-03560-LAK Document 31 Filed 10/12/2007 Page 11 of 11
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 195 (Wednesday, October 10, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 57594]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-4989]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel, B Cell Immunology for Protective 
HIV-1 Vaccine.
    Date: October 29-30, 2007.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: DoubleTree Hotel & Executive Meeting Center, 8120 
Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.
    Contact Person: Kenneth E. Santora, PhD., Scientific Review 
Administrator, Scientific Review Program, NIH/NIAID/DHHS, Room 3146, 
6700B Rockledge Drive, MSC 7616, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-451-2605, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#046f773635326d446a6d6c2a636b72"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="94ffe7a6a5a2fdd4fafdfcbaf3fbe2">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 
HHS).

    Dated: October 3, 2007.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-4989 Filed 10-9-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit
23.2





Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





The Board
of Directors


SulphCo,
Inc:





We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form
S-3 (No. 333-148499, No. 333-146418 and No. 333-152723) and Form S-8 (No.
333-145872 and No. 333-150056) of SulphCo, Inc. of our report dated April 2,
2007, relating to the statements of operations, cash flows, and stockholders’
equity (deficit) for year ended December 31, 2006, which appears in this Form
10-K.





/s/ Marc Lumer &
      CompanyMarc
      Lumer & CompanySan Francisco,
California





March 4,
2009
-1- 

### STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED May 3, 2016

v No. 322814 Wayne Circuit Court DANIEL DANTE BURCH, LC No. 13-006304-FC

Defendant-Appellant.

ON RECONSIDERATION

Before: R ONAYNE K RAUSE , P.J., and M ARKEY and M. J. K ELLY , JJ.

M. J. K ELLY

, J. ( concurring ).

I concur in the result only.

/s/ Michael J. Kelly
Exhibit 32



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 Lescarden Inc. (the Company) on Form 10 Q for the period ended August 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, William E. Luther, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, certify to my knowledge and in my capacity as an officer of the Company, 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, as amended; 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 the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.



Date: October 14, 2009



| |                                                    
| | ---------------------------------------------------
| | /s/ William E. Luther                              
| | William E. Luther                                  
| | Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

LARRY W. HAND,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 5:10cv49/RS-EMT

GULF POWER COMPANY,

Defendant.

___________________________________________/

ORDER

Before me is the Joint Report of Parties’ Planning Meeting (Doc. 10). The

attorneys have provided no explanation why they have apparently disregarded the

instructions in the Initial Scheduling Order (Doc. 6) about the discovery deadline and

available trial dates.

IT IS ORDERED that the attorneys shall file an amended joint report not later

than July 9, 2010, with deadlines consistent with a discovery deadline of October 7,

2010, and a trial date of either December 6, 2010, or January 10, 2011.

ORDERED on June 30, 2010.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
#### STATE v. CURTIS

No. 78 PC.

Case below: 22 N.C. App. 606.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 24 September 1974.
# C_2011313EN.01000701.xml

| 26.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/7

---

Communication from the Commission on the quantity of certain products in the milk and milk products sector available for the first half of 2012 under certain quotas opened by the Union

2011/C 313/04

When import licences were allocated for the second half of 2011 for certain quotas referred to in Commission Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 (1), the licence applications covered quantities smaller than those available for the products concerned. As a result, the quantity available for each quota for the period 1 January to 30 June 2012 should be calculated, taking account of the unallocated quantities resulting from Commission Regulation (EU) No 608/2011 (2) of 22 June 2011 determining the extent to which the applications for import licences submitted in June 2011 for certain dairy products under certain tariff quotas opened by Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 can be accepted.

1

2

The quantities available for the period 1 January to 30 June 2012 for the second half of the year of importation for certain quotas referred to in Commission Regulation (EC) No 2535/2001 are set out below.

---

(1)  OJ L 341, 22.12.2001, p. 29.

1

(2)  OJ L 163, 23.6.2011, p. 20.

2

---

ANNEX

ANNEX I.A

| Quota number | Quantity (kg) |
| --- | --- |
| 09.4590 | 68 537 000 |
| 09.4599 | 11 360 000 |
| 09.4591 | 5 360 000 |
| 09.4592 | 18 438 000 |
| 09.4593 | 5 413 000 |
| 09.4594 | 20 007 000 |
| 09.4595 | 7 502 501 |
| 09.4596 | 18 216 703 |

Quota number

Quantity (kg)

09.4590

68 537 000

09.4599

11 360 000

09.4591

5 360 000

09.4592

18 438 000

09.4593

5 413 000

09.4594

20 007 000

09.4595

7 502 501

09.4596

18 216 703

ANNEX I.F

| Products originating in Switzerland |
| --- |
| Quota number | Quantity (kg) |
| 09.4155 | 1 000 001 |

Products originating in Switzerland

Quota number

Quantity (kg)

09.4155

1 000 001

ANNEX I.H

| Products originating in Norway |
| --- |
| Quota number | Quantity (kg) |
| 09.4179 | 2 037 087 |

Products originating in Norway

Quota number

Quantity (kg)

09.4179

2 037 087

ANNEX I.I

| Products originating in Iceland |
| --- |
| Quota number | Quantity (kg) |
| 09.4205 | 175 000 |
| 09.4206 | 190 000 |

Products originating in Iceland

Quota number

Quantity (kg)

09.4205

175 000

09.4206

190 000

---
Case 1:07-cv-02262-WHP Document 12 Filed 10/01/2007 Page 1 of 1
The Chase Manhattan Bank
One Chase Manhattan Plaza
New York, NY  10081




                               July 1, 1997



Mr. Ronald L. Krutzman
Treasurer
Laclede Gas Company
720 Olive Street
St. Louis, MO  63101

Dear Ron:

The Chase Manhattan Bank (the "Bank") is pleased to advise you that it is
prepared to offer a line of credit to Laclede Gas Company (the "Company") up
to the maximum amount of $15,000,000.  The Bank will consider requests for
advances under the line of credit until July 31, 1997.  The purpose of the
line of credit is general corporate purposes.  Accordingly, our officers
may, at their discretion, make short term loans to the Company on such terms
as may be mutually agreed upon from time to time.

Notes issued under this arrangement shall mature not more than thirty days
(30) from date of issuance.  Interest shall be payable at maturity or on the
date of any prepayment.  Notes issued under this arrangement may be prepaid
at any time without penalty.

We ask that you continue to supply us with current financial and other
information, which current information will be furnished to the Bank as it
may from time to time reasonably request.

It is understood that any loans obtained by any subsidiary of the Company
whether or not they are guaranteed by the Company are excluded from this
arrangement and shall not be charged against the credit stated above.

Nothing in this letter is intended to alter the arrangement set forth in the
agreement dated January 17, 1997 or the availability of up to $10,000,000 of
advances thereunder from the Bank on the terms set forth in said January 17,
1997 Agreement.

It is understood that this arrangement is subject to an arrangement Fee of
$1,025.00 (8BPS).
 Please acknowledge your understanding of the above by signing and returning
the attached copy of this letter by fax, by July 1, 1997.

                               The Chase Manhattan Bank


                               s/Paul V. Farrell
                               Paul V. Farrell
                               Vice President

                                 Page 42<PAGE>
<PAGE>
Acknowledged:
Laclede Gas Company


By: s/Ronald L. Krutzman

Name: Ronald L. Krutzman
Title: Treasurer

















































                                 Page 43
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,476,370
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,476,370
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                21,650
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (21,650)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (21,650)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (21,650)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# C_2011189EN.01002801.xml

| 29.6.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 189/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 189/28

---

Publication pursuant to Directive 2001/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the reorganisation and winding-up of credit institutions

2011/C 189/09

The High Court of Ireland

The High Court of Ireland

IN THE MATTER OF IRISH LIFE AND PERMANENT PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY (‘IL&P’) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE CREDIT INSTITUTIONS (STABILISATION) ACT 2010 (‘THE ACT’)

IN THE MATTER OF IRISH LIFE AND PERMANENT PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY (‘IL&P’) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE CREDIT INSTITUTIONS (STABILISATION) ACT 2010 (‘THE ACT’)

The High Court of Ireland did on 9 June 2011 make a direction order pursuant to Section 9 of the Act in the following terms:

Directing IL&P (being a credit institution licensed in Ireland) to take certain steps in connection with the preparation for the possible disposal of some or all of the business and assets of Irish Life Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of IL&P, either by way of initial public offering or private sale thereof.

The Court did declare inter alia that the direction order and each part of it is a reorganisation measure for the purposes of Directive 2001/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001.

Pursuant to Section 11 of the Act, an application may be made for the setting aside of the direction order on the conditions set out therein, to the High Court of Ireland, at the Four Courts, Inns Quay, Dublin 7, Ireland not later than five working days after the making of the direction order.

Pursuant to Section 64(2) of the Act, no appeal lies from the direction order to the Supreme Court without leave of the High Court.

Full copies of the order are available from the Central Office of the High Court by e-mail to listroomhighcourt@courts.ie

---
#### STATE v. THURMAN BROWER.

(Filed 2 February, 1968.)

1. Constitutional law § 28—

Where there has been no trial in the inferior court haying jurisdiction of the offense charged in the warrant and the cause is transferred to the Superior Court upon defendant’s demand for jury trial, trial in the Superior Court upon the original warrant is a nullity.

2. Criminal law § 127';—

Where a fatal defect appears on the face of the record, the Supreme Court will, *ew mero motu,*arrest judgment.

Appeal by defendant from *Armstrong, J.,*September 1967 Criminal Session of RaNdolph.

Defendant was charged in a warrant with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The warrant was returnable to the Recorder’s Court of Randolph County. When the case was called for trial, defendant waived trial and moved that-the case be transferred to the Superior Court of Randolph County. The motion was allowed. Defendant was tried upon the original warrant in Randolph Superior Court at the September 1967 Session, and the jury returned a verdict of guilty as charged. Upon imposition of sentence, defendant moved in arrest of judgment. This motion was denied, and defendant appealed.

Defendant filed no brief in this Court but filed a motion in arrest of judgment because of defect in the warrant. On 17 October 1967 the Court in Conference denied this motion. The disposition of the case in Recorder’s Court was not shown in the record until an addendum to the record was filed on 19 October 1967.

*Attorney General Bruton, Assistant Attorney General Melvin, and Staff Attorney Costen for the State.*

*No counsel contra.*

Per Curiam.

The Recorder's Court of Randolph County had final jurisdiction of the offense charged, subject to defendant’s right *741of appeal, and no local act authorized transfer from Recorder’s Court to Superior Court.

When there has been no trial in the court below of an offense of which it has final jurisdiction (subject to right of appeal to Superior Court), and the cause is transferred to the Superior Court upon waiver of trial and motion for transfer to Superior Court by defendant, trial in Superior Court upon the original warrant is a nullity. *State v. Thomas,*236 N.C. 454, 73 S.E. 2d 283.

Although defendant did not. file a brief with this Court, it appears from the face of the record proper that the conviction and sentence are void, and in such case this Court will, of its own motion, arrest judgment. *State v. Lucas,*244 N.C. 53, 92 S.E. 2d 401. However, the State may proceed to try defendant for the offense in the proper court.

Judgment arrested.