alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SLIP. OP. 99-36

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

BEFORE: SENIOR JUDGE NICHOLAS TSOUCALAS

 

 :

THE TIMKEN COMPANY, :

:

Plaintiff and :

Defendant-Intervenor, :

:

v. :

: Consol. Court No.

UNITED STATES, : 96-12-02686

:

Defendant, :

:

NTN BEARING CORPORATION :

OF AMERICA, AMERICAN NTN :

BEARING MANUFACTURING :

CORPORATION and NTN :

CORPORATION; NSK LTD. :

and NSK CORPORATION, :

:

Defendant-Intervenors :

and Plaintiffs, :

:

AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., :

INC., HONDA OF AMERICA MFG., :

INC. and HONDA MOTOR CO., :

LTD., :

:

Defendant-Intervenors. :

 :

JUDGMENT

On December 3, 1997, this Court remanded to the Department of

Commerce, International Trade Administration (“Commerce”) several

issues arising from the final results of the administrative review,

entitled Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and

Unfinished, From Japan and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or
Consol. Court No. 96-12-02686 Page 2

Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan; Final

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Revocation

in Part of an Antidumping Finding, 61 Fed. Reg. 57,629 (Nov. 7,

1996) (“Final Results”). See Timken Co. v. United States, 21 CIT

__, 989 F. Supp. 234 (1997). The Court ordered Commerce, inter

alia, to treat NSK Ltd. and NSK Corporation’s (“NSK”) return

rebates as direct expenses. 

On April 21, 1998, Commerce released draft remand results in

this action and invited interested parties to comment. In NSK’s

comments to the draft remand results, NSK argued that Commerce

erred in its calculation of foreign market value (“FMV”) by

treating NSK’s return rebates as price adjustments rather than

promotional expenses as Commerce had done in three determinations

decided between the original Final Results and the remand.

On June 1, 1998, in compliance with this Court’s remand order,

Commerce filed its Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to

Court Remand (“Remand Results”). In the Remand Results, Commerce

treated NSK's return rebates as direct expenses, but nonetheless

denied any adjustment to FMV for such expenses because the reported

amounts could not be tied to specific transactions.

The Court finds that Commerce correctly treated NSK’s return

rebates as direct expenses pursuant to this Court’s order in
Consol. Court No. 96-12-02686 Page 3

determining that the rebates constituted direct price adjustments.

Commerce’s prior treatment of NSK’s return rebates as promotional

expenses in previous determinations has no bearing on the Final

Results of this case.

Commerce having complied with this Court’s remand order, it is

hereby 

ORDERED that the Remand Results are affirmed in their

entirety, and all issues having been previously decided, it is

further 

ORDERED that this case is dismissed.

 

 NICHOLAS TSOUCALAS

 SENIOR JUDGE

Dated: April 16, 1999

 New York, New York
Editorial Note on Part 157
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 157 appear by USCG-2008-0179, 73 FR 35015, June 19, 2008.

§ 157.220 Dedicated clean ballast tanks: Standards. ( a ) Cargo tanks that are designated as dedicated clean ballast tanks must allow the tank vessel to meet the draft and trim requirements under §§ 157.10a(d) and 157.10b(b).
( b ) Each tank under paragraph (a) of this section must be: ( 1 ) A wing tank; or
( 2 ) Any other tank that is accepted by the Commandant.
[CGD 77-058b, 45 FR 43714, June 30, 1980, as amended by CGD 79-152, 45 FR 82250, Dec. 15, 1980]
-cr-06239-WPD Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/04/2000 P
-cr-06239-WPD Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2000 P
-cr-06239-WPD Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2000 P
###### Editorial Note on Part 159

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 159 appear by USCG-2008-0179, 73 FR 35015, June 19, 2008.

#### § 159.111 Pressure and vacuum pulse test.

Liquid retention components of the device with manufacturer specified venting installed must be subjected to 50 fillings of water at a pressure head of 7 feet or the maximum pressure specified by the manufacturer for operation of the device, whichever is greater, and then emptied with a 45 gallon per minute or larger positive displacement pump that remains in operation 30 seconds after emptying the tank at the end of each cycle.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6141
HENRY LEE GERALDS, Petitioner - Appellant, versusRONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-96-340-2) Submitted: November 18, 1997 Decided: December 2, 1997 Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henry Lee Geralds, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994) (current version at 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997)). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal, see Lindh v. Murphy , 521 U.S. ___, 65 U.S.L.W. 4557 (U.S. June 23, 1997) (No. 96-6298), and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Geralds v. Angelone , No. CA96-340-2 (E.D. Va. Jan. 7, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 112 (Friday, June 9, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 36684]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-14553]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER99-3393-002]


PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; Notice of Filing

June 5, 2000.
    Take notice that on May 30, 2000, Jersey Central Power & Light 
Company (doing business as GPU Energy) hereby submitted for filing a 
Refund Report with supporting materials.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and 
protests should be filed on or before June 20, 2000. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be 
taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on 
the Internet at http//www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-
2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-14553 Filed 6-8-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
§ 136.219 Authorized claimants. ( a ) A claim for loss of subsistence use of natural resources may be presented only by a claimant who actually uses, for subsistence, the natural resources which have been injured, destroyed, or lost, without regard to the ownership or management of the resources.
( b ) A claim for loss of profits or impairment of earning capacity due to loss of subsistence use of natural resources must be included as part of the claim under this section and must include the proof required under § 136.233.
United States District Court

for the

Southern District of Florida

Liora Samandarova, Plaintiff,

v.

Hookah Exotix LLC, and others, 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No. 22-22787-Civ-Scola

Order on Clerk’s Default Procedure

Previously, the Court has struck Defendant Alexandre Arkhipov’s answer

and affirmative defenses to the Plaintiff’s complaint. (Order, ECF No. 24.) In 

order to resolve this case justly, swiftly, and economically the Court orders the

Plaintiff to submit a Motion for Entry of Clerk’s Default by January 26, 2023,

consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a). The motion must include

a certificate of service indicating that the Plaintiffs sent it to the Defendant, 

including the address(es) it was mailed to.

Alternatively, if the Plaintiff no longer wishes to prosecute this action, or 

has otherwise settled the matter, the Plaintiff must immediately file a Notice of 

Voluntary Dismissal in keeping with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

41(a)(1)(A)(i). This option is not available to FLSA Plaintiffs. See Lynn’s Food 

Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1352-55 (11th Cir. 1982).

If the Clerk enters a default and the Defendant fails to move to set aside 

the default, or fail to otherwise respond to this lawsuit, the Plaintiff must 

promptly seek a default judgment, consistent with Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 55(b). If the Plaintiff fails to timely seek a Clerk’s default or a default 

judgment, the Court may dismiss this action, without prejudice, for failure to 

prosecute.

The Court directs the Clerk to mail copies of this order to any 

Defendant who has not appeared at the address(es) listed below.

Done and ordered in Miami, Florida on January 19, 2023.

________________________________

Robert N. Scola, Jr.

United States District Judge

Copy via U.S. mail to:

Alexandre Arkhipov 

8028 NW 11th Ave. 

Miami, FL 33150

Case 1:22-cv-22787-RNS Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/20/2023 Page 1 of 1
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 annual report of Genio Group,  Inc. (the "Company")
on Form  10-KSB/A  for the period  ending  September  30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on September  8, 2004 (the  "Report"),  I,
Andrew J. Schenker, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

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

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


/s/ Andrew J. Schenker
-------------------------
Andrew J. Schenker
Chief Financial Officer
September 8, 2004

A signed original of this certification has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 99
<PAGE>

      Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


R. Miles Ledgerwood, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Norma J. Clute,
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of Alamogordo Financial Corp. (the
"Company") each certify in his or her capacity as an officer of the Company that
he or she has reviewed the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-KSB for the
year ended June 30, 2003 and that to the best of his or her knowledge:

         1.       the report fully complies with the requirements of Sections
                  13(a) 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.

The purpose of this statement is solely to comply with Title 18, Chapter 63,
Section 1350 of the United States Code, as amended by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Alamogordo Financial Corp. and will be retained by Alamogordo
Financial Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.


September 26, 2003                     /s/ R. Miles Ledgerwood
-------------------------              -------------------------------------
Date                                   R. Miles Ledgerwood
                                       President and Chief Executive Officer


September 26, 2003                     /s/ Norma J. Clute
-------------------------              -------------------------------------
Date                                   Norma J. Clute
                                       Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
Exhibit 32.2

RELM WIRELESS CORPORATION

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 RELM Wireless Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, William P. Kelly, Executive Vice President and 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.

|                |     |                                                                      
|--------------- | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
|                |     | RELM WIRELESS CORPORATION                                            
|                |     |                                                                      
|                | By: | /s/ WILLIAM P. KELLY                                                 
|                |     | William P. Kelly
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|August 10, 2009 |     |
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 HIV Vaccine Clinical Trial Units.                    

*Date:*                        February 10-11, 2000.                    

*Time:*                        8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                        To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                        St. James Suites, St. James Room, 950 24th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037.                    

*Contact Person:*                        Hagit S. David, Scientific Review Administrator, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, NIAID, NIH, Room 2217, 6700-B Brockledge Drive, MSC, 7610, Bethesda, MD 20892-7610, 301-496-2550.                    

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

Dated: January 12, 2000.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 00-1417 Filed 1-20-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
EXHIBIT 23.1





CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS





We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8/S-3 No. 333-56762) pertaining to the 1999 Stock Plan, 2000 Stock Plan, 2000 Incentive Stock Plan and 2000 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of
Loudcloud, Inc., of our report dated February 26, 2002, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Loudcloud, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended January 31, 2002.





/s/    Ernst & Young LLP





San Jose, California


June 19, 2002
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"ADR.gov","provider_url":"https:\/\/adr.gov","title":"Ch.24 – Neutrals","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"fueXW37a6p\"><a href=\"https:\/\/adr.gov\/guidance\/adrguide-home\/ch24\/\">Ch.24 – Neutrals<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/adr.gov\/guidance\/adrguide-home\/ch24\/embed\/#?secret=fueXW37a6p\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Ch.24 – Neutrals” — ADR.gov\" data-secret=\"fueXW37a6p\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/* <![CDATA[ *\/\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n\/* ]]> *\/\n<\/script>\n"}
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-92325) pertaining to the Inforte Corp. Amended
and Restated 1997 Compensation Plan and in the Registration Statement on Form
S-8 (Registration No. 333-92325) pertaining to the Inforte Corp. Amended and
Restated Employees Stock Purchase Plan, of our report dated January 25, 2001,
with respect to the financial statements incorporated herein by reference, and
our report included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K).

                                          /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
                                          Ernst & Young LLP

Chicago, Illinois
March 15, 2001
#### EMBRY BROTHERS, INC., and James Drury, Appellants, v. Howard L. DAVIS, United States of America, and Citizens Fidelity Bank & Trust Company, Appellees.

No. 13454.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

Oct. 10, 1958.

Hardy & Logan, William B. Cohen, Louisville, Ky., for appellants.

William A. Miller, Thomas W. Bullitt, J. Leonard Walker, Louisville, Ky., Charles K. Rice, Lee A. Jackson, A. F. Prescott, Robert Coe and Helen A. Buckley, Washington, D. C., for appel-lees.

Before ALLEN, Chief Judge, MARTIN, Circuit Judge, and THORNTON, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

This cause has been heard and considered upon the oral arguments and briefs of attorneys for the parties and upon the record in the case.

And it appearing that the findings of fact of District Judge Brooks are supported by substantial evidence and are not clearly erroneous, and that his conclusions of law rest upon a sound basis;

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed, and it is so ordered.
EXHIBIT 32.2
 
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350
 
 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Akorn, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2014, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and to which this Certification is an exhibit (the “Report”), the undersigned officer of the Company does hereby certify, pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. 1350) and Rule 13a-14(b) promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (17 CFR 240.13a-14(b)), that to my knowledge:
 
 (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: October 24, 2014
 
 /s/ TIMOTHY A. DICKTimothy A. DickChief Financial Officer
**1997- Cotton and Wool Outlook 12.12.97 [ Text  ] Cotton and Wool Outlook 10.14.97 [Text ]Cotton and Wool Outlook 09.15.97 [
Text
 ]
- Cotton and Wool Outlook 08.13.97 [ Text  ] Cotton and Wool Outlook 07.14.97 [Text ]Cotton and Wool Outlook 06.13.97 [
Text
 ]
- Cotton and Wool Outlook 05.13.97 [ Text  ] Cotton and Wool Outlook 04.14.97 [Text ]Cotton and Wool Outlook 03.12.97 [
Text
 ]
- Cotton and Wool Outlook 02.13.97 [ Text  ]  

**
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-16-00083-CR

Dennis Harris

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 432nd District Court

of Tarrant County (1390488D)

May 12, 2016

Per Curiam 

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for 

want of jurisdiction.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM