alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 58317.

protest 196585-K (Galveston).

#### Leslie B. Canion and F. C. Hall & Anderson-Prichard Oil Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of seamless steel oil-well casings similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Winkler-Koch Engineering Co.*(41 C. C. P. A. 121, C. A. D. 540), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
**Exhibit 31.1: Sarbanes-Oxley Certification**DateI, E. Todd Whittemore, Executive Vice President of Aurora Loan Services LLC., certify that:I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of periods included in the year covered by this annual report, ofStructured Asset Securities CorporationMortgage Pass-Through CertificatesSeries 2005-S3;Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a  whole, 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 as of the last day of the period covered by this annual report;Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required to be provided to the Trustee by the Servicer under the Pooling and Servicing or similar, agreement, for inclusion in these reports is included in these reports;I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the master servicer under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, and  based on upon my knowledge and the annual compliance review required under that agreement, and except as disclosed in the reports, the master servicer has fulfilled its obligations under that agreement; andThe reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the servicer's compliance with the minimum servicing standards based upon the report provided by an independent public accountant, after conducting a review in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure, as set forth in the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, that is included in these reports.In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:TitleU.S. Bank National Association, as TrusteeSignature1.2.3.4.5. 3/29/06                                                                                                            /s/ E. Todd Whittemore                                                                                                              Executive Vice PresidentChase Home Finance LLC, as Sub-servicer for JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.GMAC Mortgage Corporation, as ServicerJP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., as ServicerWells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Servicer
Exhibit 31.1   CERTIFICATION  I, Peter Toscano, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of International Power Group, Ltd.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statements 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;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The issuers other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the issuer and have:  (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonable likely to materially affect, the issuers internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the issuers auditors and the audit committee of the issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the issuers internal control over financial reporting.  Date:  May 18, 2007 /s/ Peter ToscanoPeter Toscano(Chief Executive Officer, and Chairman of the Board of Directors)
(Principal Executive Officer)
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       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 Westwood Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ernest
H. McKee, Chief Executive 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 results of operations of the
Company.

/s/ Ernest H. McKee


Ernest H. McKee
Chief Executive Officer

August 13, 2002
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION


Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 1350


(Section
302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)





In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of AgFeed Industries, Inc.
(the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Junhong
Xiong, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:





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





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





Date:
      March 16, 2009
              By:
              /s/ Junhong XiongName:
      Junhong XiongTitle:
      Chief Executive Officer







This
certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A signed
original 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.
- Actions and Applications Received (H.2)
- Applications Subject to Public Comment (H.2A)
- Electronic Applications and Applications Filing Information
- Enforcement Actions
- Orders on Banking Applications
- Public Information Documents
- Public Meeting Transcripts
- Semiannual Reports on Banking Applications Activity

- Beneficial Ownership Reports
- Large Commercial Banks
- Minority-Owned Banks
- U.S. Offices of Foreign Entities

- Financial Holding Companies
- Interstate Branching
- National Information Center
- Securities Underwriting and Dealing Subsidiaries

Basel Regulatory Capital Framework

Business Resiliency

Community Reinvestment Act

- Legal Interpretations
- Orders Issued under the Bank Holding Company Act
- Orders Issued under the Bank Merger Act, FDI Act, Federal Reserve Act, and International Banking Act
- Pending Cases
- Regulation YY Foreign Banking Organization Requests
- Transition Period Requests Under Section 716(f) of the Dodd-Frank Act

Regulations

Reporting Forms

Resolution Plans

S.A.F.E. Act

Stress Tests and Capital Planning

- Community Banking Connections
- Consumer Affairs Letters
- Federal Reserve System Examiner Commissioning Program Course Catalog
- International Training & Assistance for Bank Supervisors
- Large Institution Supervision Coordinating Committee
- Partnership for Progress: Minority-Owned and De Novo Bank Program
- Shared National Credit Program
- Supervisory Assessment Fees
- Supervision Manuals
- Supervisory Staff Reports
- Volcker Rule

- By topic
- By year

TARP Program Information
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

CLAY A. WALTERS,

Plaintiff,

v.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of

Social Security,

Defendant.

CASE NO. C06-5384JKA

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. Plaintiff does not appear to have

funds available to afford the $350.00 filing fee.

The clerk is directed to issue summonses submitted by plaintiff to enable plaintiff to properly serve

copies of the complaint on the appropriate parties. Plaintiff shall note that it is her responsibility to

properly serve copies of the complaint along with appropriate summons as required by Rule 4 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DATED this 27th day of July, 2006.

/s/ J. Kelley Arnold 

J. Kelley Arnold

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05384-RBL Document 2 Filed 07/27/06 Page 1 of 1
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER REGARDING MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

ALEXANDER MUN, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

v.

FIRST FINANCIAL INSURANCE CO., et

al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-2098RSL

ORDER REGARDING MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the

Court’s December 20, 2006 order holding that plaintiffs were not the real parties in interest and

granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Now that summary judgment has been

granted and the case closed, plaintiffs seek leave to join American States Insurance Company

(“ASIC”). Although the Court is not inclined to grant the motion, it is willing to consider

whether defendant would prefer joinder to facing a potential second lawsuit by ASIC.

Accordingly, defendant may file a response to the motion for reconsideration, not to

exceed six pages, no later than Friday, January 19, 2007. The Clerk of the Court is directed to 

Case 2:05-cv-02098-RSL Document 42 Filed 01/10/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER REGARDING MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION - 2

renote plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration (Dkt. #40) on the Court’s calendar for January 19,

2007.

DATED this 10th day of January, 2007.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge 

Case 2:05-cv-02098-RSL Document 42 Filed 01/10/07 Page 2 of 2
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10** 
**- 1639** 

THERMAN JONES ,
Plaintiff

– Appellant ,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ,
Defendant

– Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Easter n District of Virginia , at Richmond

. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. ( 3:09

- cv
- 00590

- RLW )

Submitted : February 10, 2011 Decided: March 3 , 2011

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam o pinion

.

Charles Henry Cuthbert, Jr., CUTHBERT LAW OFFICES, Petersburg, Virginia, for Appellant. Eric Kressman, Regional Chief Counsel, Brian O’Donnell, Supervis ory Attorney, Jillian Kipp, Assistant Regional Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Phil adelphia, Pennsylvania; Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Robin Perrin Meier, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Therman Jones appea ls the district court’s order
affirming the Commissioner’s decision to deny Jones a period of
disability and disability insurance benefits. We must uphold
the decision to deny benefits if the decision is supported by

substantial evidence and the correct l aw was applied. See 42

U.S.C. § 405(g) ( 2006 ); Johnson v. Barnhart , 434 F.3d 650, 653

(4th Cir. 2005) (per curiam). We have thoroughly reviewed the
parties’ briefs, administrative record, and the materials
submitted in the joint appendix, and find no rev ersible error.
Accordingly, we affirm. See Jones v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. ,

No. 3:09

- cv
- 00590

- RLW (E.D. Va. June 3, 2010). We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
BUILDING A WORLD OF DIFFERENCE®PNM SJGSPNM SJGSNMED Question #1 (Sept 21, 2007)BUILDING A WORLD OF DIFFERENCE®- 2Question #1Please provide a schematic of the SCR overviewincluding all major components such as theinduced draft fan, SCR, SCR-bypass, forced draftfan, boiler, baghouse, and the locations of wherefans are to be locatedBUILDING A WORLD OF DIFFERENCE®- 3SCR System Arrangement and ComponentsSteamGeneratorBottomAshAmmoniaFabricFilterNew ID FansFly AshSiloAirHeaterAirHeaterAshBallMillReagentSlurryTankReclaimWaterTankFGDAbsorbersHydrocyclonesLime-stoneSiloFilterCakeStack(Disposal)Hot Side ESPSCRVacuumFiltersNotes:1. Equipment added for SCR in red.2. Hot Side ESP de-energized.SCR By-passBUILDING A WORLD OF DIFFERENCE®- 4Typical SCR System Reactor and DuctingSpace For Future Catalystand Sootblower AdditionGas Flow DistributionDevicesSteam or AirSootblowersVaporizedAmmoniaFlue Gas toAir HeaterCatalystTemperatureMeasurement GridTuning/Monitoring GridFlue GasFrom HotSide ESPBypassDamperIsolationDampersBUILDING A WORLD OF DIFFERENCE®- 5AttachmentszDesign Concept Definition Sheet – SJGS SCRzUnits 1 and 2 Proposed SCR LayoutzUnits 3 and 4 Proposed SCR Layout
# C_2006212EN.01003401.xml

| 2.9.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 212/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 212/34

---

Action brought on 7 July 2006 — Fränkischer Weinbauverband v OHIM (three-dimensional mark ‘Bocksbeutel’)

(Case T-180/06)

(2006/C 212/61)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Fränkischer Weinbauverband e.V. (Würzburg, Germany) (represented by N. Hetzelt and A. Weigand, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 April 2006 (Case No R 0479/2004-1); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 April 2006 (Case No R 0479/2004-1);

| — | order the defendant to publish Community trade mark No 002323301 in accordance with Article 40 of the Community trade mark regulation and; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to publish Community trade mark No 002323301 in accordance with Article 40 of the Community trade mark regulation and;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The three-dimensional collective mark ‘Bocksbeutel’ for goods and services in Classes 32, 33 and 42 (Registration No 2 323 301).

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Partial rejection of the application.

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejection of the appeal.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: The mark applied for is capable of being protected as it has the necessary distinctive character within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 64 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1). Furthermore, the contested decision infringes the principle of equal treatment.

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

1

---
----

----

| RCC Real Estate, Inc., a Delaware corporation                                               |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Resource Real Estate Funding 2007-1 CDO Investor, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company |
| Resource Real Estate Funding CDO 2007-1 Ltd.                                                |
| Resource Real Estate Funding CDO 2007-1, LLC                                                |
| RREF 2007 REO, LLC                                                                          |
| Resource Real Estate Funding 2006-1 CDO Investor, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company |
| Resource Real Estate Funding CDO 2006-1 Ltd.                                                |
| Resource Real Estate Funding CDO 2006-1, LLC                                                |
| RREF 2006 REO, LLC                                                                          |
| RCC Real Estate SPE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company                              |
| RCC Real Estate SPE 2, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company                            |
| RCC Real Estate SPE 3, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company                            |
| Resource TRS, Inc., a Delaware corporation                                                  |
| LEAF Receivables Funding 3, LLC                                                             |
| Resource TRS, LLC                                                                           |
| RCC Commercial, Inc., a Delaware corporation                                                |
| Apidos Cinco CDO, Ltd (“TRS”), a Cayman Island company                          |
| Apidos CDO I, Ltd. (“TRS”) a Cayman Island company                              |
| Apidos CDO III, Ltd., (“TRS”) a Cayman Island company                           |
| RCC Real Estate Acquisitions SPE, LLC                                                       |
| Resource Capital Trust I                                                                    |
| RCC Trust II                                                                                |

----

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth B. KUBINSKI, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 99-6985.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 15, 2001.

Decided June 28, 2001.

*102Neal Lawrence Walters, Charlottesville, VA, for appellant. Robert Edward Skiver, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, NC, for appellee.

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Kenneth B. Kubinski seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2000). In a supplemental brief, he asserts claims that the Government failed to disclose exculpatory material as required by *Brady v. Maryland,*373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963); that the trial court failed to instruct the jury in accordance with *Richardson v. United States,*526 U.S. 813, 119 S.Ct. 1707, 143 L.Ed.2d 985 (1999), regarding the continuing criminal enterprise count; and that his sentence violates *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error as to its denial of relief on Kubinski’s claim under *Brady.*We decline to consider Kubinski’s claims under *Richardson*and *Apprendi,*
      * presented for the first time on appeal. *See Muth v. United States,*1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir.1993). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. *United States v. Kubinski*Nos. CR-93-28-H; CA-97-973-5-H (E.D.N.C. July 1, 1999). 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.*

We recently held in *United States v. Sanders,*247 F.3d 139 (4th Cir.2001), that the new rule announced in *Apprendi*is not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review. Accordingly, Kubinski’s *Apprendi*claim is not cognizable.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                 5
<CIK>                                     0000876716
<NAME>                SB International Advisors Currency Fund L.P.

<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                              JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         2,117,633
<SECURITIES>                                      (9,168)
<RECEIVABLES>                                      7,130
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2,115,595
<PP&E>                                                 0
<DEPRECIATION>                                         0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,115,595
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             52,964
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                               0
<OTHER-SE>                                     2,062,631
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,115,595
<SALES>                                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                (275,574)
<CGS>                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  17,036
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (292,610)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    0
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (292,610)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (1.40)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          0


</TABLE>