alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE ANNUAL
REPORT ON FORM 10-K OF A. P. GREEN INDUSTRIES, INC. AS OF AND FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER  31, 1996 AND IS  QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH ANNUAL
REPORT.
</LEGEND>
              
<MULTIPLIER>                                         1,000
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                       12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                               9,477
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       43,785
<ALLOWANCES>                                         1,701
<INVENTORY>                                         53,674
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   119,537
<PP&E>                                             210,354
<DEPRECIATION>                                     102,960
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     355,129
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               43,996
<BONDS>                                             44,277
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             8,975
<OTHER-SE>                                         109,409
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       355,129
<SALES>                                            258,461
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   258,461
<CGS>                                              214,353
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      214,353
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   3,112
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      6,833
<INCOME-TAX>                                         2,396
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  5,347
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                         5,347
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          .67
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>


                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.22


                                 PROMISSORY NOTE


$  200,000.00                                            Date:  October 14, 2004

For value received the undersigned SUPERIOR GALLERIES, INC. (the "Promisor")
promises to pay to the order of STEPHEN GEHRINGER (the "Payee"),

At Beverly Hills, California or such other place as the Payee may designate in
writing, the sum of $ 200,000.00 with interest from October 14, 2004, on the
unpaid principal at the rate of 10.00% percent annually.

The unpaid principal and accrued interest shall be payable on demand. All
payments on this Note shall be applied first in payment of accrued interest and
any remainder in payment of principal.

This Note shall be secured by specific coins "Coin Collateral" from Superior's
rare coin inventory as listed in Exhibit A. The Coin Collateral may be held by
the Payee or another third party designated by the Payee.

If any one or more of the provisions of this Note is determined to be
unenforceable, in whole or in part, or any reason, the remaining provisions
shall remain fully operative.

All payments of principal and interest on this Note shall be paid in the legal
currency of the United States. Promisor waives presentment for payment, protest
and notice of protest and nonpayment of this Note.

No renewal or extension of this Note, delay in enforcing any right of the Payee
under this Note, or assignment by Payee of this Note shall affect the liability
of the Promisor. All rights for the Payee under this Note are cumulative and may
be excised concurrently or consecutively at the Payee's option.

This note shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of
California.

Signed this 14th day of October 2004 at Beverly Hills, California.



By: /s/ Silvano A. DiGenova
    -----------------------
    Silvano A. DiGenova,
    Chief Executive Officer
#### § 202.2 Time and place for filings.

All petitions, requests and replies relating to Secretarial review of Maritime Subsidy Board actions shall be filed with the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, Department of Transportation. Such papers shall be filed in accordance with the provisions of and within the time periods prescribed by Department Order 117-A.
#### The State ex rel. Cotton, Appellant, *v.*Ghee, Chair, Ohio Adult Parole Authority, Appellee.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Cotton v. Ghee*(1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 54.]

(No. 98-1165

Submitted September 28, 1998

Decided December 2, 1998.)

*55
      *Milton Cotton, pro se.*

*Betty D. Montgomery,*Attorney General, and *Brian M. Zets,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

*Per Curiam.*

Cotton asserts in his various propositions of law that the court of appeals erred in denying the writ and in refusing to grant his Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment. For the following reasons, however, we reject Cotton’s contentions and affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

First, Cotton is not entitled to a second parole hearing for appellee to consider whether he should be paroled due to the vacated conviction. The APA already held a hearing in 1990 at which it considered the court of appeals’ vacation of his 1988 conviction and ultimately decided to reparole him. Mandamus will not issue to compel a vain act. *State ex rel. Thomas v. Ghee*(1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 191, 192, 690 N.E.2d 6, 7.

Second, Cotton is not entitled to have appellee journalize the court of appeals’ mandate in the vacated case. Appellee has no duty to journalize court entries, and the appellee’s records establish that the APA considered the mandate in its 1990 decision to reparole Cotton. In addition, the court of appeals has already journalized its mandate. See *State ex rel. Cotton v. Griffin*(1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 105, 106, 689 N.E.2d 560, 561.

Finally, Cotton cannot establish that the court of appeals erred in not granting his Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment. Nothing in the record demonstrates that the court of appeals ruled on this motion. Appellee also did not attach a copy of this entry to his brief or supplement. We cannot add matter to the record before us and decide this appeal based upon that new matter. *56
      *Barnett v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.*(1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 385, 387, 692 N.E.2d 135, 137. Moreover, the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction to rule on this motion once Cotton filed this appeal. *Daloia v. Franciscan Health Sys. of Cent. Ohio, Inc.*(1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 98, 101, 679 N.E.2d 1084, 1088, fn. 5, citing *Howard v. Catholic Social Serv. of Cuyahoga Cty., Inc.*(1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 141, 146, 637 N.E.2d 890, 895. Cotton’s claim of error relating to his Civ.R. 60(B) motion is therefore premature.

Based on the foregoing, the court of appeals properly denied the writ. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense.

# ACTION:

Federal Advisory Committee Sub Committee Meeting Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Sunshine in the Government Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended) and 41 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 102-3.140 through 160, the Department of Defense announces the forthcoming sub committee meeting:

Subcommittees of the Commission will conduct preparatory work meetings in the New Jersey area June 15th to gather information, conduct research and analyze relevant issues and facts in preparation for a meeting of the Commission. Pursuant to section 102-3.160(a) of 41 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), these subcommittee meetings are not open to the public, and the subcommittees are required to report their findings to the Commission for further deliberation. Locations include the East Orange VA Health Center. Additionally, the Sub Committees may visit public and private hospitals in the area for investigation of Centers of Excellence that apply to the Commission's Charter.

Dated: May 18, 2007.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, DoD.

[FR Doc. 07-2597 Filed 5-22-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
#### § 294.19 Nature of award procedure.

TSP furthers a public purpose and MARAD does not acquire goods or services through TSP. Therefore, the selection process for awarding TSP Operating Agreements does not constitute an acquisition subject to procurement law or the Federal Acquisition Regulation.
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

I, Martin Euler, the Chief Financial Officer of Astrata Group Incorporated, (the
"Company"),  certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1)   the  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended
      August 31, 2004 (the  "Report")  fully complies with the  requirements  of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
      78m or 78o(d)); and

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

Dated:  October 20, 2004

                                                 /s/ Martin Euler
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                 Name: Martin Euler
                                                 Title: Chief Financial Officer

A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
required by Section 906,  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.
<PAGE>

                                                        EXHIBIT 32.1


             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 Technology Funding Venture Partners IV
Liquidating Trust (the Trust) Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
period from inception (July , 2006) through December 31, 2006, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I
Charles, R. Kokesh, President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief
Financial Officer and Chairman of Technology Funding Inc. and Managing
General Partner of Technology Funding Limited, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as added Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Trust as of and for
the period covered by the Report.


Date:  March 29, 2007  By:     /s/   Charles R. Kokesh
                               --------------------------------
                                     Charles R. Kokesh
                                     President, Chief Executive
                                     Officer, Chief Financial
                                     Officer and Chairman of
                                     Technology Funding Inc. and
                                     Managing General Partner of
                                     Technology Funding Limited

Technology Funding Partners IV Liquidating Trust
Page 1 of 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: 5
Federal Reserve Bank of: Richmond

## Filings received during the week ending March 31, 2007

|Filer                            | Filing Type        | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                | End of Comment Period                                
|-------------------------------- | ------------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------
|CAPITAL ONE BANK                 | * 18C              | Capital One Bank, Glen Allen, Virginia, to acquire certain assets and assume certain liabilities of Capital One, F.S.B., McLean, Virginia.                                                                     | Newspaper:04/16/2007Federal Register:Not applicable  
|Newspaper:                       | 04/16/2007        
|Federal Register:                | Not applicable    
|GATEWAY FINANCIAL HOLDINGS, INC. | * 18C* Branch* 3A3 | Gateway Financial Holdings, Inc., Virginia Beach, Virginia, to acquire 100% of the voting securities of The Bank of Richmond, N.A., Richmond, Virginia.                                                        | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not available
|Newspaper:                       | Not available     
|Federal Register:                | Not available     
|SANDY SPRING BANCORP, INC.       | * 3A5* 18C* Branch | Sandy Spring Bancorp., Inc., Olney, Maryland, to acquire 100% of the voting securities of CN Bancorp, Inc., Glen Burnie, Maryland, and thereby indirectly acquire County National Bank, Glen Burnie, Maryland. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not available
|Newspaper:                       | Not available     
|Federal Register:                | Not available     

## 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
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 147

To amend title 18, United States Code, to modify the death penalty for

drug kingpins.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. SOLOMON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, to modify the death

penalty for drug kingpins.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Drug Kingpin Death

5 Penalty Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF DEATH PENALTY FOR DRUG

7 KINGPINS.

8 Section 3591(b)(1) of title 18, United States Code,

9 is amended by striking ‘‘which involved not less than twice

10 the quantity of controlled substance described in sub-
2

•HR 147 IH

1 section (b)(2)(A) or twice the gross receipts described in

2 subsection (b)(2)(B)’’.

Æ
<PAGE>





                                                                    Exhibit 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

     I, Dennis M. Apfel, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of FragranceNet.com,
     Inc.; and

2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of
     a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
     statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
     were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
     report;

Dated:   June 27, 2005
                                          /s/  Dennis M. Apfel
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Dennis M. Apfel
                                          Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and
                                          Chief Financial Officer
#### Frederick Diedrick, *Respondent, v.*John Kean and Edward G. Brown, *Appellants*.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Dykman, J.
#### GEORGE J. FLINT, Respondent, *v.*ABRAM VAN DUSEN, Executor, etc., and Others, Appellants.

*Lien of attorney on judgment or decree*— *none acquired in courts not of record.*

While the Surrogates’ Courts were courts not of record no lien could be acquired upon a decree entered therein, by the attorney for the successful party for the services rendered by him in the proceeding.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, entered on the report of a referee.

*Isaac E.*Maynard, for the appellants.

*James A.*lynes, for the respondent.

Smith, J.:

This action was brought to enforce an alleged lien upon a surro- . gate’s decree for services rendered by the plaintiff, who is an attorney of this court, in the proceedings before the surrogate which resulted in the said decree. By the decree, the appellant *607herein was directed, as executor, to pay certain moneys to the plaintiff’s clients in the proceedings before the surrogate, and he has paid the same accordingly. By the judgment herein he is required to pay the amount of the plaintiff’s claim, on the ground that at the time when he made the payments under the decree, he had notice of the plaintiff’s claim, which was adjudged by the referee to have been a valid lien on the moneys so paid by the executor.

We think the plaintiff had no lien. We are not aware of a case holding that a lien exists upon a judgment rendered in a court not of record, for services performed in such court in obtaining such judgment. In those courts there are no attorneys, in the sense in which that term is used in courts of record *(Fox*v. Jackson, 8 Barb., 355), and it is only in respect of the party’s character of attorney or solicitor, that the claim to a lien exists. And it would seem that oourts not of record, possessing only a limited jurisdiction, have no such equitable control over their judgments as will enable them to adjudicate upon and enforce liens thereon. No one will contend that a lien exists for services rendered by an attorney in a Justice’s Court. At the time when the services in question were rendered, Surrogate’s Courts were not courts of record. The fact that the statute making them courts of record was passed before the decree in, question was rendered, does not affect the ease, as the decree did not recognize the plaintiff’s claim, and the services on which the alleged claim is based were all rendered'before the statute referred to was passed.

The judgment should be reversed, and as the facts cannot be changed, bearing upon the point on which the case is decided, another trial is unnecessary, and judgment is ordered for the defend-, ant, with costs.

Hardin J., concurred; Taloott, P. J., not voting.

Judgment reversed, and judgment ordered for defendant, with costs.
§ 42.25-1 Application of this subpart. ( a ) The provisions of this subpart 42.25 apply only to vessels to which timber load lines are assigned.
[CGFR 68-60, 33 FR 10067, July 12, 1968]
# C_2012165EN.01001001.xml

| 9.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 165/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 165/10

---

Appeal brought on 5 March 2012 by Bernhard Rintisch against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2011 in Case T-109/09: Bernhard Rintisch v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case C-121/12 P)

2012/C 165/16

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Bernhard Rintisch (represented by: A. Dreyer, Rechtsanwalt)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Valfleuri Pâtes alimentaires SA

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Seventh Chamber of the General Court (Court of First Instance) of 16 December 2011 in Case T-109/09; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Seventh Chamber of the General Court (Court of First Instance) of 16 December 2011 in Case T-109/09;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the contested judgment should be annulled on the ground that the General Court infringed Article 74(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) (CMTR) [now Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (2)] and on the ground of misuse of power. According to the appellant the General Court wrongly interpreted Article 74/2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 by deciding that the Board of Appeal was right in not taking into account documents and evidence submitted by the appellant. The General Court wrongly decided that the Board lawfully refused to exercise discretion when refusing to take the aforementioned documents into account.

1

2

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, OJ L 11, p. 1

1

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark, OJ L 78, p. 1

2

---