alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Official Journal C 22A/23 J

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 22A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5823 January 2015 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 22A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5823 January 2015

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Commission |
| 2015/C 022A/01 | Publication of a vacancy for a Director of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA), in Lisbon (Temporary Agent — Grade AD 14) — COM/2015/20002 | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Commission

2015/C 022A/01

Publication of a vacancy for a Director of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA), in Lisbon (Temporary Agent — Grade AD 14) — COM/2015/20002

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Before the Second Division,

April 2, 1962

No. 66642.

#### S. Wagner & Co. *v.*United States,

protests 59/14869, etc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items marked “A” consist of pigtails similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 63984, the merchandise was held dutiable at 11 percent under the provision in paragraph 369(c), as modified by the Sixth Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 54108), for parts of automobiles; the items marked “B,” stipulated to consist of signaling devices or parts thereof similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 64079, were held dutiable at 11%, 11, or 10% percent, depending upon the date of entry, under the provision in said paragraph 369(c), as modified, *supra,*for parts of automobiles or trucks; and the items marked “O,” stipulated to consist of barricade flashers or parts thereof similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 64079, were held dutiable at 11% or 11 percent, depending upon the date of entry, under the provision in paragraph 353, as modified, *supra,*for electrical signaling apparatus and devices, as claimed.
*Pursuant to 5

TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5

TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-10225

Summary Calendar

W. FOSTER SELLERS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

D.D. SANDERS, Warden, Clements Unit; R.L. BRIGGS,

Captain, Clements Unit; UNKNOWN PARTIES, working

for Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional

Division,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas

(2:97-CV-354)

September 21, 1998

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, DAVIS and JONES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

W. Foster Sellers, a Texas inmate proceeding pro se, appeals the dismissal

of his civil rights action for failure to prosecute. Our close review of the appellate

record and Sellers’ multiple submissions and contentions inexorably lead us to the

conclusion that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Sellers’
 

1 McNeal v. Papasan, 842 F.2d 787 (5th Cir. 1988).

2

complaint for want of prosecution.1 No more need be said.

The judgment appealed is AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

                                                                 Exhibit 10.35.1
                                                                 ---------------




                                 PROMISSORY NOTE


$206,805                                                           New York, NY
                                                                 January 3, 1998

FOR VALUE RECEIVED, Robert Ehrlich hereby promises to pay to the order of
Electric Fuel Corporation (EFC) with its principal place of business at 885
Third Avenue, New York, New York, the principal sum of Two Hundred and Six
Thousand Eight Hundred and Five Dollars, on December 31, 2007.

Robert Ehrlich further promises to pay to EFC interest on the outstanding
principal sum as follows:

Interest will accrue on the loan until maturity and will be calculated at the
higher of:

1.   1%, over the Federal Fund Rate of 5.5% compounded on December 31, 1998 and
     thereafter on an annual calendar year basis (using a 365 day year).

                                       OR

2.   The percentage increase in the Israeli consumer price index between the
     date of the loan and the date of the annual interest calculation,
     calculated in New Israeli Shekels based on the original shekel amount of
     the loan NIS 733,744.

          The calculation under this option will at every annual accrual date be
          executed by taking the original NIS amount multiplied by the CPI
          increase to date and divided by the current exchange rate.

At any given calculation date, the interest for the current period will be
charged by taking the higher of the two ending balances (principal and interest)
less the previously calculated balances.

This Note is secured by a pledge to EFC of the shares of EFC acquired with the
promissory note dated January 3, 1993.

This Note shall be deemed to have been made under and shall in all respects be
governed by the internal laws of the Sate of Delaware without reference to
conflicts of laws.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Note has been duly executed and delivered by


    /s/   Robert Ehrlich
 ---------------------------
Before the Second Division,

February 26, 1953

No. 57091.

protests 181769-K and 181770-K (Minneapolis).

#### Gellman Brothers *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

At the trial, counsel for the respective parties stipulated “that the articles identified as items numbered 3809, 3810, 3812 and 3815 on the invoices are composed in chief value of papier mache and will now be assessed at 12)4 per centum ad valorem under Paragraph 1403, Tariff Act of 1930 as modified by T. D. 52476.” Upon the agreed statement of facts, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained as to the items in question.
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 Jaguar Acquisition Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the period ending March 31, 2007 (the “Report”),
      as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I,
      James S. Cassano, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant
      to
      18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





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





/s/
                Jim Cassano
            
            Dated:
                June 27, 2007Jim
                Cassano
              Chief
                Financial Officer
              (Principal
                Financial Officer)
No. 52784.

#### Dal, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 26865-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Before the First Division,

September 5, 1952

No. 56844.

#### Bleyco Paper Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 185084-K, etc. (New York).

*367Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of cellophane sheets similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Coughlin Mfg. Co.*v. *United States*(27 Cust. Ct. 40, C. D. 1345) and *Gillette Safety Razor Co.*v. *United States*(27 Cust. Ct. 44, C. D. 1346), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 54462.

#### P. A. Tracey & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 146581-K (Providence).

Ford, Judge:

This suit against the United States involved the proper classification of certain imported rosaries. The collector classified the merchandise as rosaries, in part of silver, under paragraph 1544 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified .by T. D. 51834. The plaintiff merely claims that these rosaries should not have been classified as being in part of silver, without the citation of any paragraph of the tariff act or any trade agreement, and mentions no rate of duty.

At the trial of the case, there was received in evidence as exhibit 1 a sample of the imported rosaries. There was also admitted in evidence as exhibit 2 a United States Customs Laboratory report from Boston, Mass., which states “Silver content of the metal — 0.03%.”

Although the parties requested, and were granted, time in which to file briefs, no briefs have been filed.

In the case of *Pfister Jewelry Co.*v. *United States,*53 Treas. Dec. 878, Abstract 5129, it was held as follows:

> The chemist who analyzed the article stated that he found about one-fiftieth of 1 per cent of silver therein. While the content of silver constitutes a very insignificant element in their construction, it was held that they are articles in part of silver and as such properly classified at 50 per cent under paragraph 346.

In the case of *Varsity Watch Co.*v. *United States,*34 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 155, C. A. D. 359, the record showed that the amount or quantity of gold in the watchcases there in question was so small that it was difficult to obtain a quantitative analysis; that more than one bezel was used in tests, and that then the quantity obtained was so small that when placed upon a glass it was a mere speck. Our appellate court, however, held the watchcases to be in part of gold.

Upon the record presented, and following the cited authorities, we hold that the involved rosaries are in part of silver, as classified by the collector. The claim of the plaintiff that the rosaries are not in part of silver is accordingly overruled. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 52761.

#### Hing Wah Tai Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 82703-K, etc. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

It was stipulated that certain items of the merchandise are similar in all material respects to the articles the subject of *Rolls Razor, Inc.*v. *United States*(6 Cust. Ct. 271, C. D. 480) and Abstract 51306. The claim at 20 percent under paragraph 1558 was therefore sustained.
EXHIBIT 32.1**CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of America Service GroupInc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies that the Company’s Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007 (the “Report”) fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.Dated:November 2, 2007       Name: /s/ Michael Catalano Title: Chairman, President &
Table of Contents 

**Exhibit 13.2**

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

Arcelor Brasil S.A. (the “Company”) is filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, on the date hereof, its annual report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended 2004 (the “Report”).

I, Leonardo Dutra de Moraes Horta, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as enacted pursuant to section 906 of the U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

     1. the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and      2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Leonardo Dutra de Moraes Horta Leonardo Dutra de Moraes Horta Chief Financial Officer June 29, 2006 

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.
No. 66622.

#### New York Merchandise Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 59/22099, etc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of tile pictures in wood or metal frames similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Kreiss & Co., Ltd., et al.*v. *United States*(46 Cust. Ct. 236, C.D. 2261), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 Form of Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the
United States Code
  (i)
    
    The Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(ii)
    
    The information contained in the Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Technology Solutions Company.
 Date: August 14, 2006
    
    By:
    
    /s/ CARL F. DILL, JR.Carl F. Dill, Jr.Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION


Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 1350


(Section
906 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, 2007, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Junhong
Xiong, as 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
      13, 2008
              By:
              /s/ Junhong
      XiongJunhong
      XiongChief
      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.
A89A1906.

#### SMITH v. THE STATE.

(390 SE2d 304)

Decided January 25, 1990.

*John S. Myers,*for appellant.

*Harry D. Dixon, Jr., District Attorney, George E. Barnhill,*
      *328
      *Deborah M. Perils, Assistant District Attorneys,*for appellee.

*327Carley, Chief Judge.

Appellant was tried before a jury and found guilty of three counts of selling cocaine. He appeals from the judgments of conviction and sentences entered by the trial court on the jury’s guilty verdicts.

1. The sole enumeration of error advanced by appellant’s counsel relates to the trial court’s failure to compel the State to disclose the identity of a confidential informant. The record shows that the participation of the confidential informant was limited solely to supplying the *name*of appellant *after*the officers had independently arranged and accomplished the purchases. Compare *Moore v. State,*187 Ga. App. 387 (370 SE2d 511) (1988). Thus, the officers’ positive identification of appellant as the seller of the cocaine was based entirely upon their personal observations and not upon any information supplied by the confidential informant. Although the confidential informant was a witness to the sales, he was not the only witness. See *Ponder v. State,*191 Ga. App. 346, 347 (381 SE2d 534) (1989). Compare *Jones v. State,*192 Ga. App. 186 (384 SE2d 273) (1989); *Moore v. State,*supra. Appellant presented an alibi defense and offered witnesses in support thereof. Compare *Ponder u. State,*supra at 347; *Moore v. State,*supra. Under these circumstances, we find no error in the failure of the trial court to compel the disclosure of the identity of the confidential informant. “[T]he informant was not the only witness available to amplify or contradict the testimony of the police officer [s] or [appellant].” *Ponder v. State,*supra at 347.

2. Acting pro se, appellant seeks to have appellate consideration given to an additional issue which he asserts that his counsel has “categorically refused” to raise. Appellant has no right to simultaneous representation by counsel and self-representation. *Cargill v. State,*255 Ga. 616, 622 (3) (340 SE2d 891) (1986). Accordingly, we will not consider the issue that appellant has himself raised on appeal.

*Judgments affirmed.*

*McMurray, P. J., and Beasley, J., concur.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          31,979
<SECURITIES>                                    19,088
<RECEIVABLES>                                   60,638
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,855
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               129,735
<PP&E>                                          16,423
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,028
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 169,802
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           33,054
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           269
<OTHER-SE>                                     136,479
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   169,802
<SALES>                                            173
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               124,303
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  107,360
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (713)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,188
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  30
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,438
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,167
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,271
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,271
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.33
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1575
SAM WRIGHT, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JANET RENO, Attorney General of the United States, in her official capacity, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-97-312-A) Submitted: August 28, 1997 Decided: September 10, 1997 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sam Wright, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Richard Parker, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action in which he sought injunctive relief. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error in the district court's conclusion that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Appellant's suit against the Attorney General in her official capacity is, in effect, a suit against the United States. See Hawaii v. Gordon, 373 U.S. 57, 58 (1963). The United States, however, is immune from suit, unless there has been an express and unequivocal waiver of sovereign immunity. See Army & Air Force Exch. Serv. v. Sheehan , 456 U.S. 728, 734 (1982). Because Appellant failed to establish that the United States waived sovereign immunity, we affirm. 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
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 303 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.Con.Res.303
                                        Agreed to April 13, 2000        

                       One Hundred Sixth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,
             the twenty-fourth day of January, two thousand

                          Concurrent Resolution

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That when the House adjourns on the legislative day of Thursday, April 
13, 2000, or Friday, April 14, 2000, on a motion offered pursuant to 
this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it 
stand adjourned until 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 2, 2000, for morning-
hour debate, or until noon on the second day after Members are notified 
to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, 
whichever occurs first; and that when the Senate recesses or adjourns 
at the close of business on Thursday, April 13, 2000, or Friday, April 
14, 2000, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by 
its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand recessed or adjourned 
until noon on Tuesday, April 25, 2000, or such time on that day as may 
be specified by its Majority Leader or his designee in the motion to 
recess or adjourn, or until noon on the second day after Members are 
notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent 
resolution, whichever occurs first.
    Sec. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the 
Senate, acting jointly after consultation with the Minority Leader of 
the House and the Minority Leader of the Senate, shall notify the 
Members of the House and the Senate, respectively, to reassemble 
whenever, in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.
  Attest:

                          Jeff Trandahl,

                                                                       
                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.
              By

                                                                       
                                                          Deputy Clerk.

  Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.
```
No. P67/385.

#### Widener Mfg. Corp. et al. *v.*United States, protests 64/17075, etc. (New York). Intercontinental Fibres, Inc. *v.*United States, protest 66/8407 (New York).

No. P67/386.

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of nylon monofilament yarn similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Chester Tricot Mills, Inc.*v. *United States*(56 Cust. Ct. 532, C.D. 2695), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.