alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
---

CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
  PURSUANT TO     18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Carol Stephan, the Chief Financial Officer of Shoshone Silver
  Mining Company (the Company), hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
  Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
  2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

| | (i)  | the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company, for the
        fiscal year ended December 31, 2004, and to which this certification is
        attached as Exhibit 32 (the Report) fully complies with the
        requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
        of 1934, as amended; and
| | ---- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                                             

| | By:    | /s/ Carol Stephan          
| | ------ | ---------------------------
| |        |                            
| | Name:  | **Carol Stephan**          
| |        |                            
| | Title: | Secretary/Treasurer        
| |        | and Chief Financial Officer
| | Date:  | August 2, 2006             

A signed original of this written statement required by
  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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-KSB 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 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made
  before or after the date of the Form 10-KSB), irrespective of any general incorporation
  language contained in such filing.

---
# C_2015337EN.01004301.xml

| 12.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 337/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 337/43

---

Action brought on 26 August 2015 — LG Electronics v OHMI — Cyrus Wellness Consulting (VIEWTY SNAP)

(Case T-489/15)

(2015/C 337/48)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (represented by: M. Graf, 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: Cyrus Wellness Consulting (Berlin, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Applicant of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘VIEWTY SNAP’ — Application for Registration No 9 125 055

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM:Opposition proceedings

Procedure before OHIM:

Contested decision:Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 June 2015 in Case R 1938/2014-2

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 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
# C_2018408EN.01000902.xml

| 12.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 408/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 408/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Münster — Germany) — EV v Finanzamt Lippstadt

(Case C-685/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 63 to 65 TFEU - Free movement of capital - Deduction of taxable profits - Shareholdings of a parent company in a capital company whose management and registered office are located in a non-member State - Dividends distributed to the parent company - Tax deductibility subject to stricter conditions than deduction of profits from shareholdings in a non-tax-exempt capital company governed by national law))

(2018/C 408/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Münster

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: EV

Defendant: Finanzamt Lippstadt

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 63 to 65 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which subjects a deduction of profits from shareholdings in a capital company with its management and head office in a non-member State to stricter conditions than a deduction of profits from shareholdings in a non-exempt capital company governed by national law.

---

(1)  OJ C 144, 8.5.2017.

---
Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan – July 2009 

B-1 

APPENDIX B 

Detailed Site Information 

As part of a year 2000 network assessment conducted in cooperation with CARB, detailed site 

information was compiled for each of the monitoring sites. Following are the site reports that 

resulted from that effort, all of which are available on the CARB website. For information on 

monitoring objectives, purposes and scales, please refer to the main text of this plan. 

• Anaheim 

• Azusa 

• Banning Airport 

• Big Bear 

• Burbank 

• Compton 

• Costa Mesa 

• Crestline 

• Fontana 

• Glendora 

• Indio 

• La Habra 

• Lake Elsinore 

• LAX Hastings 

• Long Beach (North) 

• Los Angeles 

• Lynwood 

• Mira Loma (High School) 

• Mira Loma (Van Buren) 

• Mission Viejo 

• Norco 

• Ontario Fire Station 

• Palm Springs 

• Pasadena 

• Perris 

• Pico Rivera #2 

• Pomona 

• Redlands 

• Reseda 

• Riverside 

• Rubidoux 

• San Bernardino 

• Santa Clarita 

• South Long Beach 

• Upland 

• West Los Angeles
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2008-5123 WILLIAM D. MONTGOMERY and SARAH M. MONTGOMERY,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v. UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in 03-CV-2273, Judge Lawrence J. Block. ON MOTION 

### ORDER The appellants move without opposition for a 6-day extension of time, until April 21, 2009, to file their response to the court's November 5, 2008 order. Upon consideration thereof, IT IS ORDERED THAT: The motion is granted. FOR THE COURT 

### APR 17 2009 /s/ Jan Horbaly Date Jan Horbaly Clerk FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

cc: Sallie W. Gladney, Esq. APR 1 7 2009 Deborah K. Snyder, Esq. s20 CLERK
Case 2:04-cv-03509-EL Document 141-4 Filed 04/29/05 Page 1 of 21
Case 2:04-cv-03509-EL Document 141-4 Filed 04/29/05 Page 2 of 21
Case 2:04-cv-03509-EL Document 141-4 Filed 04/29/05 Page 3 of 21
Case 2:04-cv-03509-EL Document 141-4 Filed 04/29/05 Page 4 of 21
Case 2:04-cv-03509-EL Document 141-4 Filed 04/29/05 Page 5 of 21
Case 2:04-cv-03509-EL Document 141-4 Filed 04/29/05 Page 6 of 21
Case 2:04-cv-03509-EL Document 141-4 Filed 04/29/05 Page 7 of 21
Case 2:04-cv-03509-EL Document 141-4 Filed 04/29/05 Page 8 of 21
Case 2:04-cv-03509-EL Document 141-4 Filed 04/29/05 Page 9 of 21
Case 2:04-cv-03509-EL Document 141-4 Filed 04/29/05 Page 10 of 21
Case 2:04-cv-03509-EL Document 141-4 Filed 04/29/05 Page 11 of 21
Case 2:04-cv-03509-EL Document 141-4 Filed 04/29/05 Page 12 of 21
Case 2:04-cv-03509-EL Document 141-4 Filed 04/29/05 Page 13 of 21
Case 2:04-cv-03509-EL Document 141-4 Filed 04/29/05 Page 14 of 21
Case 2:04-cv-03509-EL Document 141-4 Filed 04/29/05 Page 15 of 21
Case 2:04-cv-03509-EL Document 141-4 Filed 04/29/05 Page 16 of 21
Case 2:04-cv-03509-EL Document 141-4 Filed 04/29/05 Page 17 of 21
Case 2:04-cv-03509-EL Document 141-4 Filed 04/29/05 Page 18 of 21
Case 2:04-cv-03509-EL Document 141-4 Filed 04/29/05 Page 19 of 21
Case 2:04-cv-03509-EL Document 141-4 Filed 04/29/05 Page 20 of 21
Case 2:04-cv-03509-EL Document 141-4 Filed 04/29/05 Page 21 of 21
No. 58896.

protest 229725-K (New York).

#### Spiegel Neckwear Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

An examination of the official record disclosing no reason for disturbing the presumptively correct classification of the merchandise made by the collector, the protest was overruled.
No. 60740.

#### Wander Seed & Bulb Co. *v.*United States,

protest 293271-K (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 6 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
No. 62471.

#### J. C. Decker, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 294999-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of harness hardware for use with harness for dogs the same in all material respects as that involved in *International Expediters, Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(38 Cust. Ct. 230, C. D. 1868), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
**EXHIBIT
99.11**
 
 **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 Enerplus Resources Fund (the "Fund") on
Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert
J. Waters, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of EnerMark Inc.,
on behalf of the Fund, 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
      Fund.
 
 /s/
      Robert J. WatersRobert
      J. Waters
      Senior
      Vice President and
      Chief
      Financial Officer of EnerMark Inc.
 
 March
14, 2005
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of J.Crew Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended November 3, 2007
(the Report), we, Millard S. Drexler, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and James S. Scully, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer 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 to the best of each of our knowledge:



|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: December 12, 2007



|                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Millard S. Drexler                           
|Millard S. Drexler                               
|Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ James S. Scully                                 
|James S. Scully                                     
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 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.
Before the First Division,

January 5, 1945

No. 49922.

#### Protests 91969-K, etc., of C. S. Emery & Co. (St. Albans).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

At the trial two exhibits were introduced in evidence. Exhibit 1, the trunking, consists of pieces of wood from 6 to 16 feet long, and either 3 by 4 inches or 4 by 6 inches in width and thickness, having a groove or channel, 1)4 inches wide and 1)4 inches deep, cut on one side. Exhibit 2, the capping, consists of pieces of white pine, 6 to 16 feet long, 4 to 6 inches wide, and 1 inch thick. Cables are intended to be laid in the groove in the trunking and the capping is intended to be placed over the same as a cover. The examiner, testifying on behalf of the plaintiff, stated that “the two pieces go to fit together and they are used together” but had the capping been shipped separately he would return it as planed lumber. Plaintiffs in their brief urged that the quantity of each is not identical, and that each component part is of random length so that further effort is necessary by cutting and fitting to make the merchandise an entirety; and further, that “each could be put to infinite other uses irrespective of the other.” The court held that this may be true of the capping, which appears to be nothing more or less than planed lumber, but it is not true as to the trunking. The court further held that “it makes no difference at all that either or both of the parts of an entirety may be used independently as separate articles. The thing that makes it an entirety is that by the union of the parts a new article may be formed, having an identity of its own as such.” *(Sheldon & Co.*v. *United States,*14 Ct. Cust. Appls. 108, T. D. 41591, and *Altman*v. *United States,*13 id. 315, T. D. 41232, cited.) The evidence in this case established that the parts, trunking and capping, when put together formed a new article, viz, a cable conduit. The record did not establish clearly that the quantity of trunking was not substantially equal to the quantity of capping. If this were *184so, there might have been some ground for holding the doctrine of entireties inapplicable, at least as to the excess of one over the other. Since the plaintiffs failed to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the action of the collector, the protests were overruled.
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

 

IN RE: IMMODIUM ADVANCED

ANTITRUST LITIGATION

CIVIL ACTION Nos. 

02-4105

02-4149

02-4180

02-4197

02-4362

02-4386

02-4387

02-4476

02-4530

02-6797

02-6993

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 1st day of December, 2003, pursuant to this court’s Order dated

September 10, 2003 in In re: Immodium Advanced Antitrust Litigation (Civ. A. No. 02-4093,

Doc. No. 24), it is hereby ORDERED that the cases listed above are dismissed.

BY THE COURT:

 

MARVIN KATZ, S.J.

Case 2:02-cv-04180-MK Document 11 Filed 12/01/2003 Page 1 of 1
Case No. 14,360.

#### UNION BANK OF GEORGETOWN v. MAGRUDER.

[2 Cranch. C. C. 687.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

May Term, 1826.2

Notes — Dishonor—Notice and Demand — Administrator.

If the maker cf a promissory note die before' the note becomes payable, and the indorser administers upon the estate of the maker, no demand or notice is necessary to charge the in-dorser.

Assumpsit against the indorser of George B. Magruder’s note for $048.21, dated November 8th, 1817, and payable to the defendant. or order, seven years after date, with interest. The maker died in August, 1S23. The defendant became his administrator before the note became payable. No demand of payment of the note was made upon the defendant as administrator of the maker.

Key & Dunlop, for plaintiff,

contended that it was not necessary to make any such demand in order to charge the defendant as in-dorser. It could be of no use, as the defendant himself was the party bound to pay, and could not be injured by want of notice.

R. P. Dunlop and Mr. Coxe, contra,

contended that the obligation of the indorser, was only conditional, &c.

2

**[Reversed in 8 Pet. (2S U. 8.) 87.]

THE COURT

(CRANCH, Chief Judge, contra)

was of opinion that no demand of payment of the note was necessary upon the defendant, as administrator of the maker, to charge the defendant as indorser of the note.

Reversed by the supreme court of the United States. S Pet. [28 U. S.] 87.
---

| | Tel: 604 688
      5421 Fax: 604 688 5132
      www.bdo.ca | BDO Canada LLP
      600 Cathedral Place 925 West Georgia
      Street Vancouver BC V6C 3L2 Canada
| | ---------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Direct Line: (604) 646-4390E-mail: jjai@bdo.ca

February 25, 2011

Securities and Exchange Commission 100 F Street,
N.E.Washington, DC 20549 U.S.A.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

We have read the statements made by Dorato Resources Inc. in
its annual report on Form 20-F/A for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2010 in
response to Item 16F of Form 20-F/A, and we agree with the statements regarding
our Firm therein.

Very truly yours,

Chartered Accountants

JJ/sh

BDO Canada LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership, is a
member of BDO International Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee, and
forms part of the international BDO network of independent member firms.

---
# C_2017382EN.01001702.xml

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/17

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the cour du travail de Mons — Belgium) — Sandra Nogueira and Others v Crewlink Ireland Ltd (C-168/16), Miguel José Moreno Osacar v Ryanair Designated Activity Company, formerly Ryanair Ltd (C-169/16)

(Joined Cases C-168/16 and C-169/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction - Jurisdiction over individual contracts of employment - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 19(2)(a) - Concept of ‘place in which the employee habitually carries out his work’ - Airline sector - Airline crew - Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 - Concept of ‘home base’))

(2017/C 382/20)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Cour du travail de Mons

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Sandra Nogueira, Victor Perez-Ortega, Virginie Mauguit, Maria Sanchez-Odogherty, José Sanchez-Navarro (C-168/16), Miguel José Moreno Osacar (C-169/16)

Applicants:

Defendants: Crewlink Ireland Ltd (C-168/16), Ryanair Designated Activity Company, formerly Ryanair Ltd (C-169/16)

Defendants:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 19(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of proceedings being brought by a member of the air crew, assigned to or employed by an airline, and in order to establish the jurisdiction of the court seised, the concept of ‘place where the employee habitually carries out his work’, within the meaning of that provision, cannot be equated with that of ‘home base’, within the meaning of Annex III to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 of 16 December 1991 on the harmonisation of technical requirements and administrative procedures in the field of civil aviation, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1899/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006. The concept of ‘home base’ constitutes nevertheless a significant indicium for the purposes of determining the ‘place where the employee habitually carries out his work’.

---

(1)  OJ C 191, 30.5.2016.

1

---
# C_2015311EN.01005601.xml

| 21.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/56

---

Action brought on 20 July 2015 — Morgan & Morgan v OHIM — Grupo Morgan & Morgan (Morgan & Morgan)

(Case T-399/15)

(2015/C 311/61)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Morgan & Morgan International Insurance Brokers S.r.l. (Conegliano, Italy) (represented by: F. Gatti and F. Caricato, lawyers)

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: Grupo Morgan & Morgan (Ciudad de Panamá, Panama)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Applicant:

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Morgan & Morgan’ — Application for registration No 11 596 087

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before OHIM:

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 May 2015 in Case R 1657/2014-1

Contested decision:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | recognize and declare that the recourse presented by the Appellant is admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

recognize and declare that the recourse presented by the Appellant is admissible and well founded;

| — | reform the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

reform the contested decision;

| — | give way to a definitive registration of the Community Trademark no. 11 596 087 in the name of Morgan & Morgan International Insurance Brokers s.r.l. in class 36; |
| --- | --- |

—

give way to a definitive registration of the Community Trademark no. 11 596 087 in the name of Morgan & Morgan International Insurance Brokers s.r.l. in class 36;

| — | order OHIM to pay fees and cost of the three proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay fees and cost of the three proceedings.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---