alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 54542.

#### Marianao Sugar Trading Corporation *v.*United States,

protest 155273-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the •court dismissed the protest.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          34,959
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,928
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,330
<INVENTORY>                                      2,060
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                52,397
<PP&E>                                          20,279
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,355
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  67,866
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,148
<BONDS>                                         32,445
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            3,179<F1>
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       143,078
<OTHER-SE>                                   (131,311)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    67,866
<SALES>                                         29,832
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                32,779
<CGS>                                           13,781
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,781
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,048
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  (10)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (272)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (10,082)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (10,082)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (10,082)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.36)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.36)
<FN>
<F1>Net of current portion ($2,702)
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
No. 51899.

#### Fownes Bros. & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 991875-G, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). The claim of the plaintiff was therefore sustained.
In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Northeast Pennsylvania Financial Corp.
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2002
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, E. Lee Beard, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial 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 comply 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 present, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                operations of the Company.

| | /s/ E. Lee Beard
E. Lee BeardChief Executive Officer and chief financial officer
February 14, 2003
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**EXHIBIT 31.2**I, Morris T. Hewitt, certify that:1. I have reviewed this 10-QSB for the period ended nine months ended September 30, 2006 ofBayou City Exploration, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report; 4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report basedon such evaluation;  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscalquarter (the small business issuer’s fourth quarter in the case of an annual report) thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small businessissuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small businessissuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent function): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the small business issuer’s internal controls over financialreporting.        Date: November 14, 2006 */s/ Morris T. Hewitt*   Morris T. Hewitt   Chief Financial Officer   
25
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K Andover Holdings, Inc. (the Company) for the period ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Treasurer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based on her knowledge:

(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 results of operations of the Company.



Date:  May 9, 2012

| |                                      
| | -------------------------------------
| |                                      
| |                                      
| | /s/ Barbara L. Tolley                
| | Barbara L. Tolley                    
| | Chief Executive Officer and Treasurer
No. 64018.

protests 58/15192, etc. (New York).

#### Frederic Import Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of chewing gum similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Fred L. Strauss*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 136, C.D. 2117), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Exhibit 4.7

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

The
undersigned,

CRUCELL HOLLAND BV, having its offices at Archimedesweg 4, 2333 CN, Leiden, (hereinafter referred to as "Crucell"),

and

Prof. Dr. J. Goudsmit,now residing at Koninginneweg 4, 1075 CX Amsterdam, (hereinafter referred to as Employee),

WHEREAS

Crucell is a leading biotechnology company, principally engaged in the discovery and development of biopharmaceutical products that utilize the immune system to
combat diseases.

Crucell
is a subsidiary of Crucell N.V., a public limited liability company according to the laws of the Netherlands with a public listing on Amsterdam stock exchange Euronext N.V. and
Nasdaq, New York.

Crucell
has previously employed Employee as Senior Vice-President Vaccine Research as per September1, 2002 and now wishes to employ the Employee as Executive Vice
President & Chief Scientific Officer as per the Effective Date.

Employee
has stated that he is fully entitled and available to serve Crucell nationally and internationally and that he has, in that respect, no restrictions or obligations with respect
to anybody;

Employee
is fully aware that the business of Crucell requires extreme confidentiality as to everything that is created, developed, prepared, investigated scientifically organisationally,
economically, as well as commercially;

Employee
and Crucell wish to ratify and confirm the Employee's new position and associated employee benefits. The underlying employment agreement will replace the former employment
agreement with Crucell. The number of years of service of Employee ("the seniority") at Crucell will be respected under this new employment agreement;

HAVE AGREED AS FOLLOWS:

DUTIES

COMMENCEMENT, DURATION AND TERMINATION

---



HOURS OF WORK

REMUNERATION AND HOLIDAY ALLOWANCE

FRINGE BENEFITS

EXPENSES

---



HOLIDAYS

ILLNESS AND DISABILITY

NO SIDELINES



CONFIDENTIALITY

---



NON COMPETITION

INTELLECTUAL AND INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

SEVERANCE PAY UPON TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT

LAW

---



EXECUTED
on October 25, 2002, in Leiden, the Netherlands and effective as per the Effective Date in duplicate,

|For and on behalf of
Crucell Holland B.V.                         |  | Employee            
|----------------------------------------------------------------- |  | --------------------
|By: Crucell N.V.Title: Director                                   |  | By:Name: J. Goudsmit
|By:                                                               |  |                     
|Name: Domenico Valerio
Title: President & Chief Executive Officer

---



QuickLinks
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

: CIVIL ACTION NOS.

:

ROCHELLE : 02-3867

MONTGOMERY : 02-3889

HINES : 02-3901

KARI, et al. : 02-3926

HABERMAN : 02-3936

MILEY : 02-3951

FRANCO, et al. : 02-3975

DAVIS : 02-4113

RUSSELL, et al. : 02-4116

HERNANDEZ, et al. : 02-4126

QUILLEN, et al. : 02-4167

SIMMONS, et al. : 02-4174

BIEDERMAN : 02-4194

DRY, et al. : 02-4225

COOK : 02-4237

STEFAN, et al. : 02-4277

WALKER, et al. : 02-4283

DUNCAN, et al. : 02-4301

:

VS. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION, et al. :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this day of July, 2002, the Court having been previously

advised that the above action cannot proceed to trial and disposition because of the following

reason:

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending disposition of a related

action.

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending determination of

arbitration proceedings.

[ ] - Interlocutory appeal filed.

Case 2:02-cv-04116-SD Document 2 Filed 07/10/2002 Page 1 of 2
[ X ] - Other: Case is placed into suspense pending receipt of the Case

Transfer Order from the Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation

transferring case to District of Minnesota.

It is

ORDERED that the Clerk of Court mark this action closed for statistical purposes and

place the matter in the Civil Suspense File, and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall retain jurisdiction; and that the case be

restored to the trial docket when the action is in a status so that it may proceed to final

disposition; this order shall not prejudice the rights of the parties to this litigation.

BY THE COURT:

________________________________________

Stewart Dalzell, S.J.

Case 2:02-cv-04116-SD Document 2 Filed 07/10/2002 Page 2 of 2
pol

ProcessI D stateI

D countyIDyearIDsource TypeIDfuel TypeIDIM ProgramI D inspect

Freq test Standard sID begModel

YearID endModel

YearID use

IMyncompliance Factor 101 47 471572021 21 1 1 1 11 1974 1995N 83.16 101 47 471572021 21 1 10 1 51 1996 2019N 83.16 101 47 471572021 31 1 1 1 11 1974 1995N 83.16 101 47 471572021 31 1 10 1 51 1996 2019N 83.16 101 47 471572021 32 1 1 1 11 1974 1995N 83.16 101 47 471572021 32 1 10 1 51 1996 2019N 83.16 101 47 471572021 52 1 1 1 11 1974 1995N 83.16 101 47 471572021 52 1 10 1 51 1996 2019N 83.16 102 47 471572021 21 1 1 1 11 1974 1995N 83.16 102 47 471572021 21 1 10 1 51 1996 2019N 83.16 102 47 471572021 31 1 1 1 11 1974 1995N 83.16 102 47 471572021 31 1 10 1 51 1996 2019N 83.16 102 47 471572021 32 1 1 1 11 1974 1995N 83.16 102 47 471572021 32 1 10 1 51 1996 2019N 83.16 102 47 471572021 52 1 1 1 11 1974 1995N 83.16 102 47 471572021 52 1 10 1 51 1996 2019N 83.16 112 47 471572021 21 1 8 1 43 1996 2006N 83.16 112 47 471572021 31 1 8 1 43 1996 2006N 83.16 112 47 471572021 32 1 8 1 43 1996 2006N 83.16 112 47 471572021 52 1 7 1 41 1996 2006N 83.16 112 47 471572021 52 1 8 1 43 2007 2019N 83.16 113 47 471572021 21 1 8 1 43 1996 2006N 83.16 113 47 471572021 31 1 8 1 43 1996 2006N 83.16 113 47 471572021 32 1 8 1 43 1996 2006N 83.16 113 47 471572021 52 1 7 1 41 1996 2006N 83.16 113 47 471572021 52 1 8 1 43 2007 2019N 83.16 301 47 471572021 21 1 10 1 51 1996 2019N 83.16 301 47 471572021 31 1 10 1 51 1996 2019N 83.16 301 47 471572021 32 1 10 1 51 1996 2019N 83.16 301 47 471572021 52 1 10 1 51 1996 2019N 83.16 302 47 471572021 21 1 10 1 51 1996 2019N 83.16 302 47 471572021 31 1 10 1 51 1996 2019N 83.16 302 47 471572021 32 1 10 1 51 1996 2019N 83.16 302 47 471572021 52 1 10 1 51 1996 2019N 83.16
# C_2015190EN.01001701.xml

| 8.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/17

---

Action brought on 27 March 2015 — Hungary v Commission

(Case T-139/15)

(2015/C 190/20)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér, G. Koós and A. Pálfy, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | Set aside in part Commission Implementing Decision C(2015) 53 of 16 January 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure of the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as, with regard to Hungary, it excludes from European Union financing EUR 1 1 7 09  400 in relation to the sugar restructuring fund. |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside in part Commission Implementing Decision C(2015) 53 of 16 January 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure of the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as, with regard to Hungary, it excludes from European Union financing EUR 1 1 7 09  400 in relation to the sugar restructuring fund.

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant rejects the requirement which the Commission considers to apply, but which does not appear expressly in the judgment delivered by the Court of Justice of the European Union in Joined Cases C-187/12 and C-189/12 SFIR and Others, according to which the time of presentation of the aid application to which the exclusion contained in the contested decision refers is important for the purposes of examining the applicability of the exceptions contained in the judgment. That conclusion, according to the applicant, is contrary to the logic of the restructuring programme and, moreover, completely overlooks the seasonal nature of sugar production and calls into question the practical applicability of the exceptions.

Furthermore, the applicant considers that, although the Commission’s legal interpretation may be correct, as regards the legislation on restructuring aid — in particular the classification of silos — difficulties of interpretation have arisen, so that, given the uncertainty, the Commission acted in accordance with the law in reducing the amount excluded from European Union financing, having regard to the difficulties of interpretation inherent in the EU legislation, or completely disregarding the exclusion.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED June
30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                       APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                         JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                     2,767
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                              6,571
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                   239,391
<DEPRECIATION>                            23,131
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           291,342
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      6,256
<BONDS>                                  165,512
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                      73
<OTHER-SE>                                87,626
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             291,342
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           9,347
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           5,202
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         1,939
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            1,919
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        1,919
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                               1,919
<EPS-BASIC>                               0.26
<EPS-DILUTED>                               0.26



</TABLE>
T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N NO. 03-11-00221- CV In re Jon Alan Ashcraft ORI GINAL P ROCEEDI NG F ROM TRAVIS CO UNTY M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N The pe tition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P . 52.8(a) .

__________________________________________ Melissa Goodwin, Jus tice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Henson a nd Goodwin Filed: May

3, 2011
EXHIBIT 99.8

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS

We hereby consent to the use of our name in the Annual Report on Form 40-F (the "Annual Report") of Enerplus
Resources Fund (the "Registrant"). We hereby further consent to the inclusion in the Annual Report of the Registrant's Annual Information Form dated March 12, 2010 for the year ended
December 31, 2009 which document makes reference to our firm and our report entitled "Estimate of Reserves and Future Net Revenue to Enerplus Resources (East USA) Corporation Interest as of
December 31, 2009" dated January 27, 2010, evaluating the Registrant's oil, natural gas and natural gas liquids interests effective December 31, 2009.

Dallas, Texas, U.S.A.
March 12, 2010

HAAS PETROLEUM ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC./s/ ROBERT W. HAAS Robert W. Haas, P.E.
President


---



QuickLinks
No. 64004.

protests 157655-K, etc. (San Francisco).

#### Alpha Distributing Co. 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.
Before the First Division,

November 7, 1952

No. 56927.

#### Joseph Gluck & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

petition 6839-R (New York).

*395Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

The uncontradicted testimony of the treasurer of the petitioner corporation showed that prior to entry a submission sheet (collective exhibit 1) was submitted to the appraiser for information concerning the value of the rugs in question, and that thereafter petitioner, following its regular practice over a period of years, entered the merchandise at the purchase price, which in this instance, was the invoice value. From an examination of the record and a consideration of the facts and circumstances relating to the entry and final ap-praisement of the merchandise, the court was satisfied that the relief sought should be allowed. The petition was therefore granted.