alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 52477.

protest 124465-K (San Francisco).

#### Nanking Store *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The report of the Government analyst received in evidence reads: “The hula skirt is composed of dyed bast (fibrous bark), in the form of shaved strips, approximately 30 inches in length, 0.005 inch thickness and of various widths to % inch.” Counsel for the defendant in its brief conceded that the merchandise is not composed of a vegetable fiber and that its proper classification is under paragraph 412. It was held that this case is controlled by the decision in *Ropes*v. *United States*(T. D. 12959), wherein it was decided that bast matting was not a manufacture of vegetable fiber. Upon the facts presented, the cited authority, and the concession of counsel for the defendant, the items of merchandise invoiced as “hula skirts” were held properly dutiable at 33% percent under paragraph 412 as manufactures of bark, not specially provided for, as claimed.
No. 52880.

#### Gedeon Richter Pharmaceutical Products, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 144278-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise in question is the same in all material respects as the estrogenic hormone passed upon in *Roche-Organon*v. *United States*(35 C. C. P. A. 99, C. A. D. 378). The claim at 10 percent under paragraph 34 was therefore sustained.
No. 65377.

#### Manhattan Novelty Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 58/1287(A) (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, O. 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.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

         PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENT SET FORTH IN RULE 13A-14(B) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED, AND SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF
TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350), JEFFREY J.
BAIRSTOW, 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, 2004, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.2 (the "PERIODIC
REPORT") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the
Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has set his hand hereto as of this
7th day of May, 2004.

                                       By:   /s/  JEFFREY J. BAIRSTOW
                                             ---------------------------------
                                             JEFFREY J. BAIRSTOW
                                             CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

         A signed original of this written statement required by Rule 13a-14(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1350 of Chapter
63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), has been
provided to Vitria Technology, Inc. and will be retained by Vitria Technology,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request. This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q 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 Vitria Technology, Inc. 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-Q), irrespective
of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6399

GERALD HENNEGHAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION; CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA98-364-PJM)

Submitted: June 18, 1998 Decided: December 21, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gerald Henneghan, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Gerald Henneghan appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Henneghan v. Commissioner of Correction, No. CA-98-364-PJM

(D. Md. Feb. 25, 1998). 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
EXHIBIT 13.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 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, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael Kinley, Chief Financial 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: August 24, 2009

/s/ Michael W. Kinley



Michael W. Kinley

Chief Financial Officer
From: Telander.Jeff@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Telander.Jeff@epamail.epa.gov]

Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 12:12 PM

To: Jason Pence

Cc: Ed Watson; Garth Tayler; Susan Miller; Marinshaw, Richard; Raymond, Gabrielle; Holloway, Thomas

C. (Tom)

Subject: Re: Acme Brick

‐ ICR Response

Dear Mr. Pence,

We approve of your plan for fulfilling the requirements of the information request that was sent to

Acme on 11/17/2010.

However, regarding the Acme facilities that will rely on historical test data to represent their

performance, we reserve the right to require testing of those facilities if we identify any QA issues with

the historical data or if we receive insufficient data from the rest of the industry.

Sincerely,

Jeff Telander

Jeff Telander

Sector Policies and Programs Division

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

(D243

‐ 02)

RTP, NC 27711

919

‐ 541

‐ 5427

919

‐ 541

‐ 5450 (FAX)

Overnight mail address:

US EPA

Mail Code D243

‐ 02

109 TW Alexander Drive

RTP, NC 27709
Case 2:03-cv-06604-JP Document 459 Filed 08/19/10 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 23.2



                [Letterhead MSCM LLP]





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report on
Form 10-KSB of Metro One Development, Inc. for the year ended July 31, 2008 of
our report dated December 8, 2008 included in its Registration Statements on
Forms SB-2 (No. 333-140005, 333-135212, 333-131963) and Form S-8
(No. 333-153406), as amended, relating to the financial statements and
financial statement schedules for the year ended July 31, 2008  listed in
the accompanying index.




/s/ MSCM LLP
------------------
MSCM LLP

Toronto, Canada
December 16, 2008


<PAGE>
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 of Atlas America Public #14-2005 (A) L.P. (the
"Partnership") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Freddie M. Kotek, Chief Executive Officer of the MGP, 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
      Partnership.





By:
            /s/ Freddie M.
      KotekName:
            Freddie
      M. KotekTitle:
            Chief
      Financial Officer of the Managing General PartnerDate:
            March
      30, 2009
# Map            Major Muslim ethnic groups in Armenia, Iran, and the Islamic Commonwealth states.
# C_2015190EN.01002301.xml

| 8.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/23

---

Action brought on 27 March 2015 — Kaddour v Council

(Case T-155/15)

(2015/C 190/27)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Khaled Kaddour (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: A. Boesch, D. Amaudruz and M. Ponsard, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Order the production of the file in Case T-654/11; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the production of the file in Case T-654/11;

| — | Reserve the applicant the right to reply and, on this occasion, to produce new documents and to call witnesses; |
| --- | --- |

—

Reserve the applicant the right to reply and, on this occasion, to produce new documents and to call witnesses;

| — | Annul, in so far as these measures concern the applicant:






  — | Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2015/108 of 26 January 2015; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Annul, in so far as these measures concern the applicant:

—

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2015/108 of 26 January 2015;

| — | Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) No 2015/117 of 26 January 2015; |
| --- | --- |

—

Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) No 2015/117 of 26 January 2015;

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

—

Order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those raised in Case T-653/11 Jaber v Council
   (1).

---

(1)  
  OJ 2012, C 58, p. 12.

---
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 Quarterly Report of Duke Capital LLC (Duke Capital) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David L. Hauser, President of Duke Capital, 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 Duke Capital.



|                   
|-------------------
|                   
|/s/ DAVID L. HAUSER
|David L. Hauser    
|President          
|May 16, 2005
**EXHIBIT
99.5**
 
 
 CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS
 
 
 We
consent to the use of our reports dated February 24, 2005 (which audit report
expresses an unqualified opinion on the financial statements and includes
Comments by Auditors on Canada - United States of America Reporting Differences
relating to changes in accounting principles that have a material effect on the
comparability of the financial statements, changes in accounting principles that
have been implemented in the financial statements and restatements of the
financial statements) appearing in the Annual Report on Form 40-F of Enerplus
Resources Fund for the year ended December 31, 2004.
  /s/
      Deloitte & Touche LLPIndependent
      Registered Chartered AccountantsCalgary,
      Alberta, CanadaFebruary
      24, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> USD

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          25,269
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,465
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,950
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                46,415
<PP&E>                                          31,317
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,940
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  94,332
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           41,573
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            36
<OTHER-SE>                                      41,826
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    94,332
<SALES>                                         76,927
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                76,927
<CGS>                                           46,073
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   46,073
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                58,915
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 848
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (26,406)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (905)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (25,501)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (25,501)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.74)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.74)


</TABLE>
· ·:::;,t.{jl\!;FNT Q\: . : ·;:~::_c~~:"J, ·R-_!,ATIO,~I . ' ' ',}' \ ' l\l 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION . ·- : ;~:: l O?EHA Tl0r·~3 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

RIAN C. SEEMAN. 

Respondent. 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. ?[;2 "~P -- b /\ .{!: 50 

FAA Docket No. FAA-2012-0198 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

FAA CASE NO. 2011S0370103 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO WITHDRAW COMPLAINT 

The Complainant, by and through the undersigned attorney, hereby requests pursuant to Section 

13.215 ofthe Board's Rules of Practice [14 CFR 13.215] that the law judge approve withdrawal 

of the Complaint in the above-referenced matter. 

The parties reached settlement of this matter on August 3, 2012. As a result, the Complainant 

requests that the Administrative Law Judge vacate the Order Granting Motion to Deem 

Allegations Admitted, Granting Default Judgment, and Assessing Civil Penalty issued August 

31, 2012. The Complainant respectfully requests that its Complaint be withdrawn and this 

matter closed. 

Respectfully submitted this 5th day of September 2012. 

RASHA WN RICH GEORGE 

Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a copy of the Motion for Leave to Withdraw Complaint has been sent via 

facsimile and Federal Express to: 

The Honorable J.E. Sullivan 

DOT, Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor 

Room E12-320 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

(FAX) (202) 366-7536 

and Federal Express to: 

Rian C. Seeman 

12433 Pineneedle Drive 

Indianapolis, IN 46236-3160 

and the original and one copy via Federal Express to: 

Hearing Docket 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Operations, M-30 

West Building Ground Floor 

Room W12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Legal 

~~y~~ Assistant 

SEP 5 2012 

Dated
No. 67282.

protests 61/21790 and 61/22190 (New York).

#### Rotel Corp. of America *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of food juicers similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 65798, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
# Official Journal C 321A/2011

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.CA2011.321.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 321A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 544 November 2011 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.CA2011.321.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 321A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 544 November 2011

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | Court of Auditors |
| 2011/C 321A/01 | Vacancy notice No ECA/2011/67 — Director (Function group AD, grade 15) — Secretariat-General — Directorate of Human Resources | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

Court of Auditors

2011/C 321A/01

Vacancy notice No ECA/2011/67 — Director (Function group AD, grade 15) — Secretariat-General — Directorate of Human Resources

1

---

REVIEW OF COMPETITION C A OJs

Please find below the list of C A published during the present year.

Unless otherwise indicated, OJs are published in all language versions.

| 19 | (PL) |
| --- | --- |
| 24 | |
| 35 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 37 | (PL/RO) |
| 60 | |
| 68 | |
| 76 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 82 | |
| 91 | |
| 98 | |
| 114 | (DA) |
| 121 | (DA) |
| 122 | |
| 135 | |
| 140 | (BG/ET/HU/MT/PL/SL/SV) |
| 142 | |
| 146 | |
| 147 | (EN/IT/MT/SV) |
| 155 | (EN/ES/ET/FR/NL/PL/PT/SK/SL/SV) |
| 156 | |
| 157 | |
| 162 | |
| 169 | (EN) |
| 177 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 180 | (BG/RO) |
| 181 | (DA) |
| 183 | (SL) |
| 185 | |
| 193 | (BG/RO) |
| 198 | (CS/HU/LT/MT/PL/SK) |
| 206 | (CS/ES/LV/MT/SV) |
| 208 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 221 | |
| 222 | (BG/RO) |
| 223 | |
| 229 | |
| 257 | |
| 258 | |
| 270 | |
| 271 | |
| 278 | (EN) |
| 279 | (FR) |
| 281 | (DA) |
| 284 | (DE) |
| 285 | (LT) |
| 286 | (NL) |
| 292 | (RO) |
| 294 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 303 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 304 | (DA/EN) |
| 307 | |
| 309 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 312 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 315 | |
| 321 | (EN/FR) |

19

(PL)

24

35

(DE/EN/FR)

37

(PL/RO)

60

68

76

(DE/EN/FR)

82

91

98

114

(DA)

121

(DA)

122

135

140

(BG/ET/HU/MT/PL/SL/SV)

142

146

147

(EN/IT/MT/SV)

155

(EN/ES/ET/FR/NL/PL/PT/SK/SL/SV)

156

157

162

169

(EN)

177

(DE/EN/FR)

180

(BG/RO)

181

(DA)

183

(SL)

185

193

(BG/RO)

198

(CS/HU/LT/MT/PL/SK)

206

(CS/ES/LV/MT/SV)

208

(DE/EN/FR)

221

222

(BG/RO)

223

229

257

258

270

271

278

(EN)

279

(FR)

281

(DA)

284

(DE)

285

(LT)

286

(NL)

292

(RO)

294

(DE/EN/FR)

303

(DE/EN/FR)

304

(DA/EN)

307

309

(DE/EN/FR)

312

(DE/EN/FR)

315

321

(EN/FR)

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

EN
No. 49047.

#### Protest 937967-G of The One, Ltd. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The record showed that certain of the items in question consist of hats similar in all material respects to those involved in Abstract 47291, *226the record in which case was admitted in evidence herein. In accordance therewith the protest was sustained to this extent.
No. 63555.

protest 309796-K (San Francisco).

#### Sprouse Reitz Co. *v.*United States,

*418Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of sponges similar in all material respect to those the subject of Abstract 61191, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

LAMOTTE S. CHANDLER,

Defendant BelowAppellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff BelowAppellee.

§

§ No. 606, 2014

§

§

§

§ Court Below—Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware,

§ in and for New Castle County

§ Cr. ID 1103017141

§

§ 

Submitted: January 14, 2015

 Decided: February 19, 2015

Before HOLLAND, VALIHURA, and VAUGHN, Justices.

O R D E R

This 19th day of February 2015, upon consideration of the appellant’s 

opening brief, the State’s motion to affirm, and the record below, it appears 

to the Court that:

(1) The appellant, LaMotte Chandler, filed this appeal from the 

Superior Court’s denial of his motion for correction of sentence. The State 

has filed a motion to affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is 

manifest on the face of Chandler’s opening brief that his appeal is without 

merit. We agree and affirm.

(2) In October 2011, Chandler pled guilty to one count of Robbery 

in the First Degree, two counts of Robbery in the Second Degree, and one 
2

count each of Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony

(PFDCF), and Aggravated Menacing. The Superior Court sentenced 

Chandler to a total period of thirty years at Level V incarceration, to be 

suspended after serving nine years in prison followed by decreasing levels of 

supervision. Chandler did not appeal. In August 2014, Chandler filed a 

motion for correction of illegal sentence under Superior Court Criminal Rule 

35(a), alleging that his separate sentences for Robbery in the First Degree, 

PFDCF, and Aggravated Menacing violate double jeopardy principles and 

should be merged because PFDCF and Aggravated Menacing were lesser 

included offenses of Robbery in the First Degree. The Superior Court 

denied his motion. This appeal followed.

(3) On appeal, Chandler again alleges that his separate sentences 

are illegal because they violate double jeopardy principles. Chandler is 

incorrect. As the Superior Court properly held, the language of the PFDCF 

statute is clear evidence that the General Assembly intended to punish 

PFDCF and any underlying felony as separate offenses.1 Accordingly, there 

is no double jeopardy violation arising from Chandler’s separate sentences 

for PFDCF and the underlying felony. Moreover, Chandler’s separate 

sentences for robbery and aggravated menacing do not violate double 

 

1 DeShields v. State, 2015 WL 115487 (Del. Jan. 7, 2015).
3

jeopardy principles because the charges involved two different victims.2 His 

conviction for aggravated menacing thus was not a lesser included offense to 

his conviction for first degree robbery.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 

Superior Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura

Justice

 

2

See Wright v. State, 2010 WL 2163851 (Del. May 10, 2010) (holding that the charging 

of multiple crimes for multiple victims did not violate double jeopardy principles in that 

case).
January 28, 1948

No. 52154

Suit 4552.

#### Victor W. Davis, Jr., Administrator of the Estate of V. W. Davis, Deceased *v.*United States.

C. D. 1005 affirmed December 2, 1947. C. A. D. 374.
No. 51276.

#### Protests 122795-K, etc., of S. S. Kresge Co. et al. (Baltimore, etc.).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the pirotests.