alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT M ATTHEW

RITTER , Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. M IKE M AR SHOW SKI; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 12-17041 D.C . No. 3:12-c v-00194-LRHW GC M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Larry R . Hic ks, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d July 22, 2014 ** B e fore : GOODW IN, C ANB Y, a nd C ALLAHAN, C irc uit Judge s . M atthe w R itte r a

ppe a ls pro sefrom

the distric t

c ourt’ s judgm e nt dismissing his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion a lle ging viola t ions of his c onstitutiona

l rights. W e have jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo. Barre n v . Harrington , 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th C ir. 1998) (orde r) (dism issa l unde r 28 

# FIL ED AUG 1 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).U.S.C . § 1915(e )(2)). W e re ve rse an d re m a n d . The distric t c ourt e rre d in dismissing R itte r’ s a c tion under He c k

v . Humphre y , 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994), be c a use R itte r’ s a c tion did not “ ne c e ssa rily im ply the inva lidity

of his c onvic tion[,] ” a s R itte r a lle ge d fa c ts showing tha t his c onvic tion ha d

be e n re ve rse d. Id. M ore ove r, the distric t c ourt did not ha ve the be ne fit of thedoc um e nts tha t R itte r subm itte d for the first tim e on a p pe a l re lating to whet

he r his a c tion wa s ba rre d unde r He c k

or ba rre d by the sta tute of limita

tions. Ac c ordingly , we re m and for the distric t c ourt to re vie w the c om pla int a ga in a

n d provide le a

v e to a m e nd if any de fic ie n c ie s c o u ld be c ure d by am e ndm e nt. Se eAk

htar v . Me

s a , 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th C ir. 2012) (“ A distric t c ourt should not dism iss a pro se c om

pla int without le ave to a

m e nd unle ss it is a

bsolute ly c l e ar that the de fic ie nc ie s of the c om pla i nt c ould not bec ure d

by am e ndm e nt.” (c ita

tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d)). RE V E RSE D and RE M ANDE D.

1 2 - 1 7 0 4 1 2
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819

DCN:___SE00413A1____________________________

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in registration statements on Form S-3 (333-107295 and 333-107296) and Form S-8 (333-60124,333-60328, 333-74754, 333-74790, 333-86608, 333-86610, 333-86612, 333-98273, 333-101471, 333-101473, 333-106097 and 333-106098) of Reliant Energy, Inc. of our: 

 

Report dated March 14, 2005 (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the change in accountingfor major maintenance to the “expense as incurred” method in 2004, asset retirement obligations, energy trading contracts, consolidation of variable interest entities and its presentation of revenues and costs of sales associated withnon-trading commodity derivative activities in 2003; and its method of presenting trading and marketing activities from a gross to a net basis and goodwill and other intangibles in 2002) on the consolidated financial statements and related financialstatement schedule of Reliant Energy, Inc. and the report dated March 14, 2005 related to management’s report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Reliant Energy, Inc.for the year ended December 31, 2004. 

 

Report dated March 14,2005 (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the change in accounting for asset retirement obligations in 2003) on the consolidated financial statements of Reliant Energy Mid-Atlantic PowerHoldings, LLC appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Reliant Energy, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2004. 

 

Report dated March 14, 2005 (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the change in accounting forasset retirement obligations in 2003) on the consolidated financial statements of Orion Power Holdings, Inc. as of December 31, 2003 and for the periods from January 1, 2002 to February 19, 2002 and February 20, 2002 to December 31, 2002 and for theyears ended December 31, 2003 and 2004, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Reliant Energy, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2004. 

 

Report dated March 14, 2005 (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the change in accounting forenergy trading contracts and its presentation of revenues and costs of sales associated with non-trading commodity derivative activities in 2003 and its method of presenting trading activities from a gross to a net basis in 2002) on the consolidatedfinancial statements of Reliant Energy Retail Holdings, LLC appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Reliant Energy, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2004. 

 

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

 

Houston, Texas 

March 14, 2005****
No. 50836.

#### Protest 117548-K of Standard Oil Co. of N. J. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

At the trial the Government offered in evidence the collector’s memorandum and the report of the assistant surveyor. It was stipulated that the facts stated in the surveyor’s report, insofar as applicable to the correct number of gallons, as stated in the collector’s memorandum, to wit, 98,355, are correct. In accordance therewith it was held that the assessment of internal revenue tax shpuld be made upon the basis of 98,355 gallons rather than 122,489' gallons. The protest was sustained to this extent.
# C_2015118EN.01004402.xml

| 13.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/44

---

Action brought on 18 February 2015 — Schoeller Corporation v OHIM — Sqope (SCOPE)

(Case T-90/15)

(2015/C 118/57)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Schoeller Corporation GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: D. van Ackeren, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sqope SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘SCOPE’ — Application No 4 5 02  341

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Invalidity proceedings

Procedure before OHIM

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 November 2014 in Case R 2381/2013-1

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | in the alternative, annul the contested decision in so far as it relates to the services financial analysis and financial information; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul the contested decision in so far as it relates to the services financial analysis and financial information;

| — | order the unsuccessful parties to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the unsuccessful parties to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
No. 68661.

protests 68/17804 and 68/17833 (NewYork).

#### Liebermann Waelchli & Co., N.Y., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of vacuum brush cleaners similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Bruce Duncwn Company, a/c Sims-Worms*v. *United States*(45 Cust. Ct. 85, C.D. 2202), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit 99.1





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 Quarterly Report of Duke Capital Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Richard B. Priory, Chairman of the Board and President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 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/    RICHARD B. PRIORYRichard B. Priory Chairman of the Board and President November 14, 2002
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATIONS EXTRACTED FROM THE 10-QSB
OF NEW DIRECTIONS MANUFACTURING, INC. FOR THE 3 MONTHS AND 9 MONTHS PERIODS
ENDED MARCH 31, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH (B)
10-QSB.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          26,539
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,099,110
<ALLOWANCES>                                    41,187
<INVENTORY>                                    391,902
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,541,217
<PP&E>                                         601,197
<DEPRECIATION>                                 128,551
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,080,966
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,156,334
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,052
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,693,101
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,080,966
<SALES>                                      4,821,121
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,821,121
<CGS>                                        4,270,663
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,270,663
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               702,443
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                12,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              43,361
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (193,001)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (75,944)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (117,057)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (117,057)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.02)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 10-Q AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999             MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998             SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                      11,966,083                       0
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,532,280                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   107,000                       0
<INVENTORY>                                  4,096,706                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            19,844,518                       0
<PP&E>                                         350,523                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                (18,568)                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              21,295,041                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,178,438                       0
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                    12,246,061                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     863,658                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                21,295,041                       0
<SALES>                                     37,832,635              19,418,109
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            37,832,635              19,418,109
<CGS>                                       36,851,490              18,868,874
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,101,695                 572,843
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,203                     323
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                197,913                 148,764
<INCOME-TAX>                                    82,771                  62,271
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            115,142                  86,493
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   115,142                  86,493
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.02                    0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.02                    0.01
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

**OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL,**

**Petitioner**

**v. JEFFREY DAVID GOLDMANN,**  **Respondent :**  **: :**  **: :**  **: :**  **: :**  **: No. 2281 Disciplinary Docket No. 3** 

**No. 42 DB 2016 Attorney Registration No. 83928**  **(Out of State)**

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 28 th**  **day of July, 2016, upon consideration of the Recommendation of the Disciplinary Board, Jeffrey David**  **Goldmann is placed on temporary suspension until further order by this Court.**  **See Pa.R.D.E. 208(f)(5). He**  **shall comply with the provisions of Pa.R.D.E. 217. This Order constitutes an imposition of public discipline**  **within the meaning of Pa.R.D.E. 402, pertaining to confidentiality.** 

**Justice Mundy did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.**
---

EXHIBIT 13.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. §1350,AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Dorato Resources Inc.
(the Company) on Form 20-F for the year ended January 31, 2011, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Keith J. Henderson, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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.

Dated: July 29, 2011

| | /s/
      Keith J. Henderson         
| | -------------------------------------
| | Keith J. Henderson                   
| | President and Chief Executive Officer

---
No. 59431.

protests 131822-K, etc. (New York).

#### Comex Wine & Spirits Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, 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**CERTIFICATION**     PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENT SET FORTH IN RULE 13A-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, ASAMENDED, AND SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE (18 U.S.C. SECTION1350), MICHAEL D. PERRY, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF VITRIA TECHNOLOGY,INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION (THE “COMPANY”) HEREBY CERTIFIES THAT, TO THE BEST OF HIS KNOWLEDGE,AS FOLLOWS:     The Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006, to which thisCertification is attached as Exhibit 32.2 (the “PERIODIC REPORT”), fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that theinformation contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has set his hand hereto as of this 10th day of May, 2006.     /s/ Michael D. Perry     Michael D. PerrySenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer     A signed original of this written statement required by Rule 13a-14(b) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United StatesCode (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), has been provided to Vitria Technology, Inc. and will be retained byVitria Technology, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest. This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filingof Vitria Technology, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective ofany general incorporation language contained in such filing.
Case No. 13,051.

#### SMITH et al. v. GLOVER.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 334.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Oct. Term, 1822.

Notes — Notice of Dishonor — Custom is Washington.

In the county of Washington. D. C., according to the usage and practice of the banks and notaries public in that county, demand of payment of a promissory note, and notice to the indorser on the day after the last day of grace, is not too late to charge indorsers resident in that county having a knowledge of such usage and practice at the time of indorsing.

Assumpsit against the indorser of the promissory note of Cruikshank and Owens, for $216.85 at four months after date, due 13th-16th of June, 1817. The demand and notice were on the 17th.

Verdict for the plaintiffs [Smith & Morgan] subject to the opinion of the court on a case which stated, that it had for many years been the usage of the banks and notaries public in the county of Washington to demand payment of promissory notes on the day after the last day of grace, and, if not paid, to give notice to the indorsers on the same day, although the usage had been different in the other county in this district, and in the commercial cities of the United States generally, where the usage was to demand payment and give notice on the last day of grace. That in 1S16, and at other times, payment of notes drawn or indorsed by the defendant [Charles Glover] had been demanded on the day after the last day of grace; and that the defendant had been a director of one of the banks in Washington county. That the makers of the note, Cruikshank and Owens, had made a deed of assignment to the defendant of all their stock in trade and the debts due to them, in trust to sell the goods and collect the debts, and out of the proceeds thereof, to indemnify himself against all his indorsements for them, and to divide the surplus among his other creditors pari passu.

THE COURT

rendered judgment for the plaintiffs.
No. 57176.

protests 912037-G, etc. (New York).

#### Jos. Rotberg & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the kidskin plates are similar in all material respects to those thé subject of *Kung Chen Fur Corpn.*v. *United States*(29 Cust. Ct. 266, C. D. 1480), the claim for - free entry under paragraph 1681 was sustained.

Ford, J., concurred.

Mollison, J., dissented for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in C. D. 1480, *supra. ■*'
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

AUGUST BAILEY : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. : No. 04-130

:

JO ANNE B. BARNHART :

Commissioner of Social Security :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 17th day of October, 2005, upon consideration of the Plaintiff’s

Motion for Summary Judgment (Document No. 7), the Defendant’s Motion for Summary

Judgment (Document No. 8), the Report and Recommendation of UnitedStates Magistrate

Judge Carol S. Wells (Document No. 12), and after a thorough and independent review of

the record, it is ORDERED as follows:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report is APPROVED and her Recommendation is

ADOPTED;

2. The plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART and

DENIED IN PART; and,

3. The defendant’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

4. The decision of Commissioner of Social Security is VACATED and this case

is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with the Report and Recommendation.

 /s/ 

TIMOTHY J. SAVAGE, J.

Case 2:04-cv-00130-TJS Document 13 Filed 10/17/05 Page 1 of 1