alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 189.60-25 Exemption Certificate. ( a ) A vessel may be exempted by the Commandant from complying with certain requirements of the Convention under his administration upon request made in writing to him and transmitted via the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection.
( b ) When an exemption is granted to a vessel by the Commandant under and in accordance with the Convention, an Exemption Certificate describing such exemption shall be issued through the appropriate Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection, in addition to other required certificates.
#### Frank M. NEFF, Petitioner—Appellant, v. MCI-H, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 03-7955.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 27, 2004.

Decided June 2, 2004.

Frank M. Neff, Appellant pro se.

Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Frank M. Neff seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his *480complaint, in which Neff alleged that the Maryland Division of Corrections miscalculated his release date. Neff raised this claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). The district court denied relief based on Neffs failure to exhaust state remedies.

To the extent Neff appeals the denial of relief under § 2241, he may not do so unless a circuit judge or justice issues a certificate of appealability, and 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) (2000). A habeas petitioner meets this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Neff has not made the requisite showing.

To the extent that Neff appeals the denial of relief on his § 1983 claim, we find no error in the district court’s decision. *See Heck v. Humphrey,*512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994).

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED*
Exhibit 99.1



TRANSPRO, INC.

100 Gando Drive

New Haven, CT  06513


December 15, 2004















Modine Manufacturing Company

1500 DeKoven Avenue

Racine, WI  53403

Attention:  Bradley C. Richardson



Ladies and Gentlemen:

This letter modifies the letter dated October 28, 2004 (the "Letter") concerning certain proposed transactions between Transpro, Inc. and Modine Manufacturing Company.

1.Paragraph 3 of the Letter is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety with the following:
Closing.  It is anticipated that definitive agreements concerning the Transaction would be executed as soon as practicable following the execution of this letter and that the closing of the Transaction (the "Closing") would occur as soon as practicable thereafter, following the satisfaction or waiver of all conditions to Closing set forth in the definitive agreements providing for the Transaction (the "Definitive Agreements").



2.The reference to "December 15, 2004" in Paragraph 9(a) of the Letter is hereby deleted and replaced with a reference to "January 15, 2005."

3.In all other respects, the Letter remains unchanged.

If these changes are acceptable to you, please sign this letter in the space provided below.
Very truly yours,


TRANSPRO, INC.


By: /s/ Charles C. Johnson

Name: Charles C. Johnson

Title: President and CEO















Agreed:

MODINE MANUFACTURING COMPANY

By: /s/Bradley C. Richardson

Name: Bradley C. Richardson

Title: VP, Finance and Chief Financial Officer
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 15

- 00325

- CV

Wenzal M. Hardwick

v.

Cynthia K. Hardwick §

§

§

§ From the 362nd District Court

of Denton County (14

- 03369

- 362)

September 2 9 , 2016

Opinion by Justice Walker



### JUDGMENT

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

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

It is further ordered that appellant Wenzal M. Hardwick shall pay all of the

c osts of this proceeding, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By

_ /s/ Sue Walker

___________________ Justice Sue Walker
EXHIBIT 10.8


Summary of Revolvable  Credit  Facilities  Agreement by and between Shenzhen BAK
Battery Co.,  Ltd.  (the  "Company")  and Longgang  Division,  Shenzhen  Branch,
Agricultural Bank of China  ("Agricultural  Bank of China") dated as of June 27,
2003.

         The contract number for this agreement is (Shenzhen  Longgang)  Nongyin
Xunshou Zi (2003) No.  02370001.  The contract term is June 27, 2003 to June 27,
2005, and the amount of credit to be extended by  Agricultural  Bank of China is
RMB  50,000,000  Yuan.  Remedies in the event of breach of contract  include the
adjustment of the credit  amount,  the  suspension of credit,  the imposition of
punitive  interest,  an  increase of the  guaranty  deposit and the call back of
principal and interest before maturity.  The agreement also requires the Company
to grant a mortgage of its land use right to Agricultural  Bank of China once it
is obtained.  If the mortgage is not granted to Agricultural  Bank of China, the
contract will be amended to have a term of one year.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The Honorable Lee H. Rosenthal, Di strict Judge for the U.S. District Court for Southern Texas, Houston, sitting by designation. NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RANA MUHAMMAD MASOOD, Petitioner,
v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. No. 07-72633 Agency No. A097-620-974
MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted May 13, 2011 San Francisco, California Before: B. FLETCHER and THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and ROSENTHAL, District Judge. ** Rana Muhammad Masood (“Masood”) petiti ons for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the C onvention Against Torture. We have 

# FILED
MAY 20 2011 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and pr ocedural history of the petition, we need not recount it here. The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) supported her adverse credibility determination with “specific” and “cogent” reasons going to the “heart” of Masood’s claims. Li v. Ashcroft , 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir. 2004). For example, the IJ noted inconsistencies in Masood’ s testimony about his political activities and knowledge: Masood twice changed his testimony about the year he became an area president; neither the constituency he clai med to have voted in, nor the candidate he claimed to have voted for, appeared in the October 2002 election results; and, in his asylum interview, Masood misidentif ied common abbreviations in Pakistani politics. Substantial evidence supports th e IJ’s findings, which go to the heart of Masood’s claims. See Singh v. Ashcroft , 367 F.3d 1139, 1143 (9th Cir. 2004) (noting that petitioner’s lack of political knowledge and incorrect statements supported an adverse credibility finding); Wang v. INS , 352 F.3d 1250, 1259 (9th Cir. 2003) (“So long as one of the identified grounds is supported by substantial evidence and goes to the heart of [petiti oner’s] claim of persecution, we are bound to accept the IJ’s adverse credibility finding.”).3 The remaining record evidence would not compel any reasonable factfinder to find that Masood established his eligibility for relief. See Singh , 367 F.3d at 1143. PETITION DENIED.
# C_2011252EN.01002002.xml

| 27.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/20

---

Action brought on 16 June 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-301/11)

2011/C 252/38

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and W. Roels, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by approving and maintaining in force Articles 3.60 and 3.61 of the 2001 Law on income tax (Wet inkomstenbelasting) and Articles 15c and 15d of the 1969 Law on corporation tax (Wet Vennootschapsbelasting), as currently in force, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in particular Article 49 thereof; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by approving and maintaining in force Articles 3.60 and 3.61 of the 2001 Law on income tax (Wet inkomstenbelasting) and Articles 15c and 15d of the 1969 Law on corporation tax (Wet Vennootschapsbelasting), as currently in force, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in particular Article 49 thereof;

| — | order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission takes the view that the taxation of unrealised capital gains on the transfer of an undertaking or part of an undertaking to another Member State or on the relocation to another Member State of an undertaking’s head office or of its actual centre of administration amounts to an obstacle to the freedom of establishment that is incompatible with Article 49 TFEU.

---
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 		EXHIBIT 32
           OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
        CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
             AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

                      PURSUANT TO
                18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
     SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Colette Cozean, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report of SurgiLight, Incorporated on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
such Quarterly Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of SurgiLight, Incorporated.

/s/ Colette Cozean
Colette Cozean
Chief Executive Officer
November 14, 2006


I, Stuart Michelson, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report of SurgiLight, Incorporated on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
such Quarterly Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of SurgiLight, Incorporated.

/s/ Stuart Michelson
Stuart Michelson
Chief Financial Officer
November 14, 2006
#### § 175.550 Special consideration.

In applying the provisions of this subchapter, the OCMI may give special consideration to authorizing departures from the specific requirements when unusual circumstances or arrangements warrant such departures and an equivalent level of safety is provided. The OCMI of each marine inspection zone in which the vessel operates must approve any special consideration granted to a vessel.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al., 

 Plaintiffs, Case No. 15-cv-11020 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

KALOMIRE K. ZANGOULOS, 

 Defendant. 

_______________________________________/ 

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

Pursuant to the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal by Plaintiffs, this case is 

DISMISSED with prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: October 4, 2016 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties 

and/or counsel of record on October 4, 2016, by electronic means and/or ordinary 

mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5113 

2:15-cv-11020-MFL-MKM Doc # 17 Filed 10/04/16 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 304
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, DanielDrummond, Chief Excecutive Officer of UAGH, Inc. (the “Company”),certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1)

the QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter endedSeptember 30, 2008 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15U.S.C. 78m or 78 o(d)); and

(2)

theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

Date:  November 14, 2008

*/s/ Daniel Drummond        *

Daniel Drummond

Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act hasbeen furnished to UAGH, Inc. and will be retained by UAGH, Inc. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.
Exhibit 11.1
<TABLE>

                              FORTE SOFTWARE, INC.
                   COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE
                      (in thousands, except per share data)
<CAPTION>

                                                                                 Years Ended March 31,
                                                                                 ---------------------
                                                                              1995       1996      1997
                                                                              ----       ----       ----
<S>                                                                           <C>        <C>       <C>   
Actual weighted average shares outstanding for the period:
Weighted average common shares outstanding ..............................     3,395      3,785     18,458
Weighted average common shares attributable to stock options and warrants       237        430      2,652
SAB 83, Cheap stock .....................................................     1,697      1,272          _
Conversion of outstanding preferred stock ...............................         _        602          _
                                                                            -------    -------    -------

Total common and cheap stock weighted average shares outstanding ........     5,329      6,089     21,110
                                                                            -------    -------    -------

Net income (loss) .......................................................   $(7,350)   $(1,988)   $ 7,249
                                                                            =======    =======    =======

Net income (loss) per share .............................................   $ (1.38)   $ (0.33)   $  0.34
                                                                            =======    =======    =======
</TABLE>
[DOCID: f:hr575p2.111]
From the House Reports Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov]



111th Congress                                            Rept. 111-575
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                      Part 2

======================================================================



 
      CONSOLIDATED LAND, ENERGY, AND AQUATIC RESOURCES ACT OF 2010

                                _______
                                

 July 30, 2010.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

  Mr. Rahall, from the Committee on Natural Resources, submitted the 
                               following

                          SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT

                        [To accompany H.R. 3534]

    In lieu of the earmark statement on page 125, insert the 
following:
    H.R. 3534 does not contain any congressional earmarks, 
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in 
clause 9 of rule XXI.

                                  <all>
# C_2012013EN.01002001.xml

| 14.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 13/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 13/20

---

Order of the General Court of 15 November 2011 — Pieno žvaigždės v OHIM — Fattoria Scaldasole (Iogurt.)

(Case T-135/10) (1)

1

2012/C 13/42

Language of the case: English

The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 134, 22.5.2010.

1

---
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 4
Federal Reserve Bank of: Cleveland

## Filings received during the week ending November 5, 2005

|Filer                                 | Filing Type   | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                   | End of Comment Period                             
|------------------------------------- | ------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------
|APPLE CREEK BANC CORP                 | CIC           | Interagency Notice of Change in Control filed by Mr. Leonard Buckner, Mt. Eaton, OH requesting prior approval to acquire up to 17.00 percent of the voting shares of Apple Creek Banc Corp, Apple Creek, OH.      | Newspaper:11/15/2005Federal Register:11/28/2005   
|Newspaper:                            | 11/15/2005   
|Federal Register:                     | 11/28/2005   
|WHITAKER BANK CORPORATION OF KENTUCKY | * 3A3         | Whitaker Bank Corporation of Kentucky, Lexington, KY to acquire the voting shares of Berea Community Bank, Inc., Berea, KY (fka Berea National Bank) pursuant to Section 3(a)(3) of the Bank Holding Company Act. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:12/05/2005
|Newspaper:                            | Not available
|Federal Register:                     | 12/05/2005   

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
§ 188.05-2 Exemptions from inspection laws for oceanographic research vessels and terms and conditions which apply in lieu thereof. ( a ) The oceanographic research vessel shall comply with 49 CFR parts 171-179 whenever applicable, except to the extent as specifically provided otherwise in this subchapter.
( b ) In order not to inhibit the mission of vessels subject to this subchapter, the Coast Guard will not require plan approval of design nor inspection of scientific equipment except to the extent specifically provided otherwise in this subchapter. However, it is the responsibility of the owner to have incorporated into the design and to maintain such equipment to applicable safety standards.
[CGFR 67-83, 33 FR 1113, Jan. 27, 1968, as amended by CGD 77-081, 46 FR 56204, Nov. 16, 1981; CGD 86-033, 53 FR 36026, Sept. 16, 1988; CGD 95-028, 62 FR 51219, Sept. 30, 1997]
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 65 (Thursday, April 5, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 16800]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-1681]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; 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 Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute 
Special Emphasis Panel; Childhood Asthma Managed Program--
Cooperative Agreements.
    Date: May 3, 2007.
    Time: 12 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, 
Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Blaine B. Moore, PhD, Health Scientist 
Administrator, Review Branch/DERA, National Heart, Lung, and Blood 
Institute, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7202, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-
435-0050, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5c3133332e393e1c3234303e3572323534723b332a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ec8183839e898eac8284808e85c2828584c28b839a">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, 
National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and 
Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, 
Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of 
Health, HHS)

    Dated: March 30, 2007.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-1681 Filed 4-4-07; 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>