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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS IN THIS QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q OF VITRIA TECHNOLOGY,
INC. FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         156,753
<SECURITIES>                                    71,620
<RECEIVABLES>                                   46,796
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,864
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               286,955
<PP&E>                                          16,314
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,141)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 324,625
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           90,122
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           128
<OTHER-SE>                                     234,375
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   324,625
<SALES>                                         74,267
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                93,899
<CGS>                                              802
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   16,042
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                85,699
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,285
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (951)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       153
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,104)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,104)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)


</TABLE>
No. 66727.

#### Ace Import Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 60/15041 (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of dish mops similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 64603, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 214 (Tuesday, November 7, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 76717]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-24538]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 1408

[Docket No. CPSC-2019-0020]


Safety Standard for Residential Gas Furnaces and Boilers; 
Correction

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On October 25, 2023, the Commission published a notice of 
proposed rulemaking (NPR) to address dangerous levels of carbon 
monoxide production and leakage from residential gas furnaces and 
boilers. That document contained a typographical error in the preamble. 
This document corrects that error.

DATES: November 7, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ronald A. Jordan, Directorate for 
Engineering Sciences, Mechanical Engineering, Consumer Product Safety 
Commission, National Product Testing and Evaluation Center, 5 Research 
Place, Rockville, MD 20850; telephone: 301-987-2219; <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d9abb3b6abbdb8b799baa9aabaf7beb6af"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="76041c1904121718361506051558111900">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission is correcting a typographical 
error in the preamble of the NPR, Safety Standard for Residential Gas 
Furnaces and Boilers, 16 CFR part 1408, which appeared in the Federal 
Register on October 25, 2023. 88 FR 73272. This document corrects a 
typographical error in section XV of the preamble, entitled Paperwork 
Reduction Act. On page 73289, first column, second paragraph, the first 
sentence erroneously states ``4,374 hours (833 hours + 833 + 208 hours 
+ 2,500 hours)''. This notice corrects that error by revising that 
language to correctly read ``3,541 hours (833 hours + 208 hours + 2,500 
hours)''. The estimated time burden thus is lower than stated in the 
NPR. The estimated financial burden in the same sentence is unchanged.

Alberta E. Mills,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. 2023-24538 Filed 11-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Order entered April 25, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 12
- 01406
- CR
JULIA BREAD CORNELIU S, Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 401st Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 401
- 82257
- 2011 

### O RDER
The Court ORDERS the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and recommendations and determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, whether appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal. See
T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8( b ). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the trial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State , 742 S.W.2d 708 (Tex. App.

– Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure eff ective representation, which may include appointment of new counsel.We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order.
T his appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are received, whichever is earlier.

/s/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE
Before the First Division,

January 11, 1945

No. 49940.

#### Petition 6271-R of Collins & Gissel (Ludwig Baer) (Galveston).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

The machine in question was entered at a value of $3,300 United States currency on the basis of alleged United States value. The value was advanced to make a value based upon cost of production, resulting in a substantial increase in the dutiable value. An appeal for reappraisement was filed and decision was rendered holding $3,529.92 to be the proper United States value (Reap. Dec. 4580). The Government appealed to the appellate division which affirmed the judgment of the single judge (Reap. Dec. 4723). An appeal was taken to the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals which reversed the lower court finding that there was no United States value for this merchandise as the importer had no stock on hand in this country at the date of exportation. *(United States*v. *Collins & Gissel (Ludwig Baer),*29 C. C. P. A. 96, C. A. D. 176.) Thereafter, an application was made to the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was denied.

During the year 1934, the date of the present importation, about 18 machines were imported into the United States. The German manufacturer, after investigating the American market, manufactured machines with specifications to meet the requirements of the United States trade. The importer stated that if any machines were entered at values higher than $3,300 United States currency, it was probably due to the fact that extra equipment was included, or that they were specially built larger machines. It appeared from the record that the importer conferred with the examiner at the port of New York regarding the value of the beer barrel washing machines on dates both prior and subsequent to *188the date of the entry involved herein, and that the customs broker at Houston, who made this entry under his instruction, also conferred with the acting appraiser there prior to making entry of the particular machine under consideration. On the record presented, the court found that the entry was made without any intention to misrepresent the facts or defraud the revenue of the United States. The petition was therefore granted.
No. 51561.

#### Protests 969524-G, etc., of Abraham & Straus, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 215 (Wednesday, November 8, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 77136]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-24695]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

STATE JUSTICE INSTITUTE


SJI Board of Directors Meeting, Notice

AGENCY: State Justice Institute.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The purpose of this meeting is to consider grant applications 
for the 1st quarter of FY 2024, and other business.

DATES: The SJI Board of Directors will be meeting on Monday, December 
4, 2023 at 1 p.m. ET.

ADDRESSES: SJI Headquarters, 12700 Fair Lakes Circle, Suite 340, 
Fairfax, Virginia.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan Mattiello, Executive 
Director, State Justice Institute, 12700 Fair Lakes Circle, Suite 340, 
Fairfax, VA 22033, 703-660-4979, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c0a3afaeb4a1a3b480b3aaa9eea7afb6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f794989983969483b7849d9ed9909881">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Authority: 42 U.S.C. 10702(f).)

Jonathan D. Mattiello,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 2023-24695 Filed 11-7-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-SC-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 1**  **0 -**  **6 6**  **90**

CLINTON MATTHEW IVEY , Plaintiff

– Appell ant ,

v. GARRETT SHELTON, JR., Captain (Portsmouth Police); LISA SMITH, Lieutenant (Portsmouth Police); CARLOS GONZALEZ, Det ective (Suffolk); PAM KING, Fire Marshal (Suffolk); WESTBROOK PARKER, Judge; JUSTIN T. BUSH, Attorney , Defendant s
- Appell ees .

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Gerald Bruce Lee , Dist rict Judge. ( 1:10

- cv
- 00374

- GBL

- TCB )

Submitted : A ugust 26 , 2010 Decided: September 3, 2010

Before KING and DUNCAN , Circuit Judge s , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirm ed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Clinton Matthew Ivey , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Clinton Matthew Ivey appeals the district court ’ s
order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) civil rights

action

. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues rais ed in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because
Ivey ’ s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the
district court’s disposition, Ivey has forfeited appellate
review of the court’s order. Accordingly , we affirm the

district court ’ s ju dgment . 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
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 11

- 00488

- CV

IN RE BOBBY JOE ROBE RTS RELATOR

------------

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

------------



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

------------

The court has considered R elator’s petition for writ of man damus

. Relator

sought a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to rule on his motion to

modify order to withdraw funds. Because the trial court ha s ruled on Relator’s

motion, this court is of the opinion that relief should be denied. Accordingly,

R e lator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied as moot

.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: WALKER, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and MCCOY, J.

DELIVERED: November 30, 2011

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4, 52.8 (d).
No. 64029.

protest 58/18246 (San Francisco).

#### Western Dairy Products, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

The protest was dismissed.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-20207

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

EMILIO DE LA GARZA-MONTEMAYOR, also known as Emilio Del La GarzaMontemayor, also known as Emilio DeLaGarza, also known as Emilio 

Montemayor DeLaGarza, also known as Emilio DeLaGarza-Montemayor, also 

known as Emmillio DeLaGarza, also known as Emmillo De La Garza,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:12-CR-418-1

Before KING, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Emilio De La Garza-Montemayor

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 

229 (5th Cir. 2011). De La Garza-Montemayor has filed a response. We have 

* Pursuant to 5TH 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 14, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-20207 Document: 00512594586 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/14/2014
No. 13-20207

reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected 

therein, as well as De La Garza-Montemayor’s response. We concur with 

counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for 

appellate review. In his response, De La Garza-Montemayor contends, inter 

alia, that his below-range sentence should not be entitled to a presumption of 

reasonableness because his guideline sentencing range was calculated under 

U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, which he argues is not based on empirical evidence. That 

contention is foreclosed, see United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th 

Cir. 2009), but by raising the argument De La Garza-Montemayor has 

preserved it for further review. 

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, 

counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS 

DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

 Case: 13-20207 Document: 00512594586 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/14/2014
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION





Pursuant to the requirements set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. § 1350), Charles J. Link, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of NewLink Genetics Corporation (the “Company”), and John B. Henneman, III, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:





|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | The Company’s Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2017, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the “Periodic Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and




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




Dated: April 9, 2018





By:/s/ Charles J. Link, Jr.Charles J. Link, Jr.Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)





By:/s/ John B. Henneman IIIJohn B. Henneman IIIChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)








A signed original of this written statement 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. This certification “accompanies” the


Form 10-K/A to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-K/A), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
**CERTIFICATION            PURSUANT TO**

**18            U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS            ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

| (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/                      Mahesh Jayanarayan                |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Chief                      Executive Officer and President |
|   |                                                       |
|   | October                      13, 2006                      |
# C_2015118EN.01004101.xml

| 13.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/41

---

Action brought on 18 February 2015 — Olympus Medical Systems v OHIM (3D)

(Case T-79/15)

(2015/C 118/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Olympus Medical Systems Corp. (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: A. Ebert-Weidenfeller and C. Opatz, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark containing the element ‘3D’ — Application for registration No 12 598 538

Trade mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 December 2014 in Case R 1708/2014-2

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;

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

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Plea 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.

---
Exhibit 99.1

           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SUBSECTION 1350
              AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION 906 OF THE
                       SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Mark Ellis, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Universal
Broadband Communications, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual 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
annual report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and
have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is
being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in
this annual report whether or not there were significant changes in
internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect
internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation,
including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies
and material weaknesses.

Date: 11/29/02
                             /s/ Mark Ellis
                           ------------------
                               Mark Ellis
                         Chief Executive Officer