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

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       5,106,000
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 19,778,000
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                              0
<ALLOWANCE>                                  1,205,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             256,936,000
<DEPOSITS>                                 160,428,000
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          2,458,000
<LONG-TERM>                                 68,780,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        39,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  25,115,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             256,936,000
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              9,206,000
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              718,000
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             9,924,000
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           3,673,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           5,319,000
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        4,605,000
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  350,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              3,606,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,072,000
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   3,072,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,931,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.50
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.20
<LOANS-NON>                                  2,544,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               855,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            1,205,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                      1,205,000
        


</TABLE>
No. 61733.

#### B. & J. Drug Corporation *v.*United States,

protest 310481-K (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

The protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
Case 2:02-cv-04100-MMB Document 7-2 Filed 10/15/2003 Page 1 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-04100-MMB Document 7-2 Filed 10/15/2003 Page 2 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-04100-MMB Document 7-2 Filed 10/15/2003 Page 3 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-04100-MMB Document 7-2 Filed 10/15/2003 Page 4 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-04100-MMB Document 7-2 Filed 10/15/2003 Page 5 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-04100-MMB Document 7-2 Filed 10/15/2003 Page 6 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-04100-MMB Document 7-2 Filed 10/15/2003 Page 7 of 7
Case No. 8,900.

#### MAGOUN v. NEW ENGLAND GLASS CO.

[3 Ban. & A. 114.]1

Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts.

Oct., 1877.

Patents — Infringement—Special License.

Where the infringing articles were constructed and used with the knowledge of the complainant, and with his consent, and were constructed by him or under his direction, and put into defendant’s factories at its expense while in its employment, and were used under his direction before and up to the date of his application for a patent: *Eeld.*that such a state of facts operates as a special license to use such specific articles. .

[Cited in American Tube-Works v. Bridge-water Iron Co.. 26 Fed. 336; Jencks v. Langdon Mills, 27 Fed. 624.]

[This was a bill in equity by Joseph Magoun against the New England Glass - Company, alleging the infringement of a patent which was granted to complainant September 10, 3867.]

Geo. E. Betton, for complainant.

Geo. L. Roberts & Bros., for defendant.

SHEPLEY, Circuit Judge.

The defendants are not proved to have used any moulds of the construction set forth in complainant’s patent, No. 68,633, except such as were constructed and used with the knowledge of the complainant, and with his consent, and were constructed by the complainant or under his direction, and put into defendant’s factories and used under his direction before and up to the date of his application for the patent. Such construction of the moulds at defendant’s expense while complainant was in their employment, operates as a special license to continue to use those specific moulds. No infringement being proved, the bill is dismissed with costs.
No. 62451.

#### A. N. Khouri & Bro. and R. H. Macy *&*Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 201694-K and 260547-K (New York).

*403Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of chinaware figures similar in all material respects to those passed upon in *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.*v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 15, C. A. D. 458), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
IV 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 840 

Expressing support for the designation of the week of April 29, 2018, through 

May 5, 2018, as ‘‘National Small Business Week’’ to celebrate the 

contributions of small businesses and entrepreneurs in every community 

in the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 24, 2018 

Mr. CHABOT (for himself, Ms. VELA ́ZQUEZ, Ms. ADAMS, Mr. BLUM, Mr. 

BRAT, Ms. JUDY CHU of California, Ms. CLARKE of New York, Mr. 

COMER, Mr. CURTIS, Mr. ESPAILLAT, Mr. EVANS, Mr. FITZPATRICK, 

Miss GONZA ́LEZ-COLO ́N of Puerto Rico, Mr. KELLY of Mississippi, Mr. 

KING of Iowa, Mr. KNIGHT, Mr. LAWSON of Florida, Mr. LUETKEMEYER, 

Mr. MARSHALL, Mrs. MURPHY of Florida, Mr. NORMAN, Mrs. 

RADEWAGEN, Mr. SCHNEIDER, Mr. DELANEY, Mr. COSTA, Mrs. COMSTOCK, Ms. TITUS, Mr. JOYCE of Ohio, Ms. ESHOO, and Mr. MEEKS) 

submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 

on Small Business 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for the designation of the week of April 

29, 2018, through May 5, 2018, as ‘‘National Small 

Business Week’’ to celebrate the contributions of small 

businesses and entrepreneurs in every community in the 

United States. 

Whereas a ‘‘National Small Business Week’’ has been declared by every President since 1963; 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 840 IH 

Whereas there are more than 29,600,000 small businesses in 

the United States; 

Whereas small businesses represent 99.9 percent of all businesses with employees in the United States; 

Whereas small businesses employ nearly 48 percent of the 

employees in the private sector in the United States; 

Whereas small businesses constitute 97.7 percent of firms exporting goods; 

Whereas small businesses are responsible for more than 46 

percent of private sector output; 

Whereas small businesses are responsible for creating nearly 

62 percent of new jobs; 

Whereas every congressional district in the United States 

contains a small business; and 

Whereas April 29, 2018, through May 5, 2018, would be an 

appropriate week to celebrate ‘‘National Small Business 

Week’’: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) celebrates the contributions of small busi3 nesses and entrepreneurs in every community in the 

4 United States; 

5 (2) supports the designation of ‘‘National Small 

6 Business Week’’; 

7 (3) recognizes the importance of creating poli8 cies which promote an environment in which small 

9 businesses may succeed; and 

10 (4) supports efforts to— 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 840 IH 

1 (A) encourage consumers to utilize small 

2 businesses; and 

3 (B) increase awareness of the value of 

4 small businesses and the impact small busi5 nesses have on the economy of the United 

6 States. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
No. 64000.

protests 145167-K/1803, etc. (Chicago).

#### Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C.C.P.A. 130, C.A.D. 508), and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C.D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

The undersigned, RodgerWeismann, Chief Financial Officer of Phase Forward Incorporated (the“Company”), in connection with the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qfor the period ended June 30, 2006 (the “Report”), as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof, hereby certifies pursuant to therequirements of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that

·              the Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

·              the information in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

This certification isbeing provided pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 and is not to be deemed a part of theReport, nor is it to be deemed to be “filed” for any purpose whatsoever.
|        |   | By:    | /s/ Rodger Weismann                                                 |   |
|--------|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   |   | Rodger Weismann                                                     |   |
|   |   |   | Chief Financial Officer  Phase Forward Incorporated  August 8, 2006 |   |

 

----
Exhibit 32.1   LZG INTERNATIONAL, INC.   CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 18 U.S.C. Section 1350  The undersigned executive officer of LZG International, Inc. certifies pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:  • the annual report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended May 31, 2011, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  • the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date:  August 8, 2011/s/ Greg L. Popp
Greg L. Popp
Principal Executive Officer
Principal Financial Officer
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION





I, William P. Horgan, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Human Pheromone Sciences, Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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 registrant's other certifying officer(s) 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 registrant 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 registrant 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 registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of 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 changes in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



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 registrant'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 registrant's internal control over financial reporting.









Date: May 14, 2007



/s/ William P. Horgan

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)
No. 63983.

protests 58/13694, etc. (New York).

#### Ameln Brothers, Inc., and F. Murray Hill Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of sprats in oil, packed in tins, similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Arnold Sorensin Co., Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(38 Cust. Ct. 199, C.D. 1862), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 51282.

#### Protest 947310-G of New York Merchandise Co., Inc. (New York).

*176Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

From the uncontradicted evidence it was held that the brass-base shells similar in all material respects to those the subject, of *New York Merchandise Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(8 Cust. Ct. 209, C. D. 607) and the Christmas tree lamps the same as those involved in *New York Merchandise Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(16 Cust. Ct. 148, C. D. 1003) are dutiable at 35 percent under paragraph 353 as parts of articles having as an essential feature an electrical element or device, such as signs. Calendars similar to those the subject of Abstract 40681 were held dutiable at 40 percent under paragraph 339 as household utensils. The protest was sustained to this extent.
#### Lenora Dunn and Charles W. Dunn, Her Husband, *v.*City of Scranton, Appellant.

*Negligence*— Municipal *corporation*— Notice.

In an action for damages for injuries sustained in a fall on a sidewalk, where the verdict of the jury establishes negligence on the part of a municipal corporation, and there was sufficient evidence of notice of the defect to the city, the verdict will be sustained.

Argued March 5, 1924.

Appeals, Nos. 8 and 9, February T., 1924, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Lackawanna Co., June T., 1919, No. 112, on verdict for plaintiffs, in the case of Lenora Dunn and Charles Dunn, her husband, v. City of Scranton.

Before Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.

Affirmed.

Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Newcomb, J.

Verdict for the plaintiff, Charles W. Dunn, in the sum of $700 and for the plaintiff, Lenora Dunn, in the sum of $1,300 and judgment thereon. Defendant appealed.

*Error assigned*was the refusal to give binding instructions in favor of the defendant.

*Philip V. Mattes,*City Solicitor, and with him *T. L. Hohan,*Assistant City Solicitor, for appellant.

*Reese H. Harris,*and with him *John M. MeCourt*and *Charles P. O’Malley,*of *Knapp, O’Malley, Hill & Harris,*for appellee.

*331July 2, 1924:

Pee Cubiam,

These appeals are from judgments in actions to recover for injuries to one of appellees by a fall on a sidewalk, which the verdict establishes was negligently maintained by the city. Appellant’s brief states the single question for review, in three forms, which, in substance, is whether the record shows notice to the city of the defect. Pursuant to Rule 50, we confine our consideration of the record to that point, (Garvey v. Thompson, 268 Pa. 353, 355; Kasson v. Water Co., 81 Pa. Superior Ct. 11, 15); the supplemental statement of question involved, filed in the supplemental brief, is based on assumptions of fact not presented by the record; we therefore cannot consider it. As the refusal to give binding instructions is the basis of the assignments of error, we take the testimony most favorable to appellees: McDonald v. Pittsburgh, 278 Pa. 485. There was sufficient evidence of notice to the city.

Judgment affirmed.
| Name      of Subsidiary                               |   | Country      of Incorporation |   | Percentage Ownership |
|-------------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|--------|---------------------------|
| Given      Imaging Pty. Ltd.                          |   | Australia                     |   | 100                       |
| Given      Imaging, Inc.                              |   | United      States            |   | 100                       |
| Given      Imaging s.a.s.                             |   | France                        |   | 100                       |
| Given      Imaging GmbH                               |   | Germany                       |   | 100                       |
| Given      Imaging B.V.                               |   | Netherlands                   |   | 100                       |
| Given      Imaging K.K.                               |   | Japan                         |   | 56                        |
| Given      Imaging  (Asia-Pacific) PTE Ltd. |   | Singapore                     |   | 100                       |
| Endonetics,      Inc.                                 |   | United      States            |   | 100                       |

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : CRIMINAL ACTION

: NO. 03-632 

v. :

:

IAN NORRIS :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 22nd day of June, 2010, it is hereby ORDERED

that Defendant's motions to dismiss (docs. no. 25, 38, 42) are

DENIED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's motions for leave to

file a reply brief (doc. no. 36, 74) are GRANTED. 

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

 s/Eduardo C. Robreno 

 EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J.
CHIEF JUSTICE

 ROGELIO VALDEZ

JUSTICES

 NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

 DORI CONTRERAS GARZA

 GINA M. BENAVIDES

 GREGORY T. PERKES

 NORA L. LONGORIA

CLERK

 DORIAN E. RAMIREZ

NUECES COUNTY COURTHOUSE

901 LEOPARD, 10TH FLOOR

CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 78401

361-888-0416 (TEL)

361-888-0794 (FAX)

HIDALGO COUNTY

ADMINISTRATION BLDG.

100 E. CANO, 5TH FLOOR

EDINBURG, TEXAS 78539

956-318-2405 (TEL)

956-318-2403 (FAX)

www.txcourts.gov/13thcoa

Court of Appeals 

Thirteenth District of Texas 

October 13, 2015

Hon. Anne Lorentzen

District Clerk

901 Leopard, Suite 313

Corpus Christi, TX 78401

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Re: Cause No. 13-14-00061-CR

Tr.Ct.No. 13-CR-1257-A

Style: The State of Texas v. David Alvarez

Pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 34.6(g)(2), we are returning the original exhibit 

(State's Exhibit # 1) filed in the above-referenced cause. [Exhibit will be mailed 

separately].

Please sign the attached acknowledgment of receipt of these exhibits and submit 

through the TAMES Records Submission Portal (RSP) as soon as possible.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me.

Very truly yours,

Dorian E. Ramirez, Clerk

DER:ch

cc: Hon. A. Cliff Gordon (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

Hon. Scott M. Ellison (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

Hon. Mark Skurka (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

RECEIPT

Receipt of the above-referenced exhibits is hereby acknowledged by me on this the 

______ day of _______________________, 20____.

_____________________________

Signature
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

In connection with the Annual Report of American Apparel, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dov Charney, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, 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.

(2) The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.

Date: March 17, 2008



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/     DOV
CHARNEY                  
|Dov Charney                          
|President and Chief Executive Officer
Before the Second Division,

March 19, 1968

No. P68/159.

protests 61/21110, etc. (New York).

#### American Rieter Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of parts of draw-twisters, which are dedicated to use on or with such machines, similar in all material respects to those the subject *oí Allied Chemical*Corp., *National Aniline*Division, *and*Alltransport, *Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(53 Cust. Ct. 233, Abstract 68680, and 56 Cust. Ct. 880, Abstract 69811), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IGBAL SINGH-SINGH, a.k.a. IQBAL

SINGH-SINGH,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-71216

Agency No. A070-169-522

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 15, 2011** 

Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Igbal Singh-Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration

judge’s order denying his motion to reopen deportation proceedings conducted in

absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of

FILED

MAR 08 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-71216

discretion, Celis-Castellano v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 888, 890 (9th Cir. 2002), we

deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh-Singh’s motion to

reopen because the evidence he submitted was insufficient to establish exceptional

circumstances to excuse his absence from his removal hearing. See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1229a(e)(i); see also Celis-Castellano, 298 F.3d at 890-92 (alien made no

showing of the seriousness of his alleged asthma attack where, inter alia, he failed

to submit evidence addressing his condition on the day of the hearing). 

Singh-Singh’s due process contentions are not supported by the record.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.