alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

 

MIRIAN SCHVOM, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

MCNEIL-PPC, INC. 

 Defendant.

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

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF

ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL NO.

2270,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

MCNEIL-PPC, INC. 

 Defendant.

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

ANDREW BEHREND, 

 Plainitff,

 v.

MCNEIL-PPC, INC. 

 Defendant.

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

ROBERT K. ALDERMAN,

 Plainitff,

 v.

MCNEIL-PPC, INC. 

 Defendant.

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

CYNTHIA B. GOEPEL,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

MCNEIL-PPC, INC. 

 Defendant.

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

MARNA BERKMAN,

 Plantiff,

 v.

MCNEIL-PPC, INC. 

 Defendant.

 

 CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-4093

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

 CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-4105

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

 CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-4149

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

 CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-4180

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

 CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-4197

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

 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-4362

Case 2:02-cv-04093-MK Document 8 Filed 09/05/2002 Page 1 of 3
2

ANDREW SPARK,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

MCNEIL-PPC, INC. 

 Defendant.

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

RICHARD KIRSCH, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

MCNEIL-PPC, INC. 

 Defendant.

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

H.S. SADOW, JR.,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

MCNEIL-PPC, INC. 

 Defendant.

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

ERIN FEGAN,

 Plainitffs,

 v.

MCNEIL-PPC, INC. 

 Defendant.

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

SCOTT JACOBS, 

 Plainitff,

 v.

MCNEIL-PPC, INC. 

 Defendant.

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

SAJ DISTRIBUTORS, INC.,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

MCNEIL-PPC, INC. 

 Defendant.

 

 CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-4386

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

CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-4387

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

 CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-4476

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

 CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-4530

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

 CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-6797

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

CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-6993

 O R D E R 

 

AND NOW, this 5th day of September, 2002, upon consideration of Plaintiffs'

Unopposed Motion for Entry of Proposed Case Management Order No. 1 Regarding Consolidation,

Case 2:02-cv-04093-MK Document 8 Filed 09/05/2002 Page 2 of 3
3

Initial Discovery and Stay Pending Appeal, it is hereby ORDERED that said Motion is GRANTED.

and Case Management Order No. 1 (Regarding Consolidation, Initial Discovery and Stay Pending

Appeal) is APPROVED.

BY THE COURT:

___________________________

MARVIN KATZ, S.J.

Case 2:02-cv-04093-MK Document 8 Filed 09/05/2002 Page 3 of 3
No. 59433.

protests 150695-K, etc. (New York).

#### Seaboard Liquor 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 32.1
|------------



|CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as Chief Executive Officer of Belair Capital Fund LLC (the Fund), that based on his knowledge:

|(a) | the Quarterly Report of the Fund on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   
|(b) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of the Fund for such period.                                       
|   



|Date: August 9, 2007
|--------------------



| | /s/ Thomas E. Faust Jr.
Thomas E. Faust Jr.
Chief Executive Officer
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Fund and will be retained by the Fund and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA :

:

vs. : CRIMINAL NO. 03-588

:

ANTHONY DIMATTEO :

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Anthony DiMatteo, defendant in the captioned matter, by his attorney, Mark Wilson,

Assistant Defender, Federal Community Defender Office, hereby appeals to the United

States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit from of the Judgment of Conviction and

sentence entered in the above captioned matter on March 10, 2006.

 Respectfully submitted,

 

 Mark Wilson 

 Assistant Federal Defender

 

Date: 

Case 2:03-cr-00588-AB Document 28 Filed 03/13/06 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Mark Wilson, Assistant Federal Defender, Federal Community Defender Office

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, hereby certify that a copy of the attached Notice

of Appeal as been served upon and Arlene D. Fisk, Special Assistant United States

Attorney by delivering a copy to her office located at Suite 1250, 615 Chestnut Street,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106.

 

MARK WILSON

Date: 

Case 2:03-cr-00588-AB Document 28 Filed 03/13/06 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>
                                                                    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 Blue Ridge Energy, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Patrick A. Kelleher, Chief Executive 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 my 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.




/S/ Patrick A. Kelleher
Patrick A. Kelleher
President and Chief Executive Officer
November 14, 2002
Opinion issued August 30 , 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 18 - 00404 - CR

——————————— ANGELA A. LARA , Appella nt

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appell e e On Appeal from the 268th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 08 - DCR - 048501 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Angela A. Lara attempt s to appeal an interlocutory order signed May 10, 2018 , denying her motion to recuse the trial judge in a post

- conviction habeas corpus proceeding . We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction
.2

In April 2018, appellant filed a third post

- conviction application for a writ of habeas corpus in the trial court , along with a motion to recuse the trial judge. The trial judge declined to recuse himself and referred the motion to Judge Susan Brown, p residing j udge of the Eleventh Administrative Judicial Region of Texas. Judge Brown den ied the recusal motion. On May 21, 2018, appellant filed a notice of appeal from the order den ying her m otion to recuse. The State moved to dismiss the appeal for want of appellate jurisdiction. The procedures for recusal of judges, in both civil and criminal cases, is set out in Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 18a. See Arnold v. State , 853 S.W.2d 543, 544 (Te x. Crim. App. 1993). An order denying a motion to recuse is reviewable only on appeal from a final judgment. See T EX . R. C IV . P. 18a(j). This rule does not permit an appeal of an interlocutory order denying a recusal motion. See Neveu v. State , No. 01

– 14

– 0 0638

– CR, 2014 WL 4890720, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] Sept. 30, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op. , not designated for publication ). This court has jurisdiction to hear appeals from interlocutory orders only in narrow circumstances not present here. See id. ; Means v. State , 825 S.W.2d 260, 260 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, no writ) (dismissing for lack of jurisdiction appeal from interlocutory order denying recusal motion). Moreover, appellant’s felony conviction is final. See Lara v. State , No. 01

– 09

– 00763

– CR, 2010 WL 4484346 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 10, 2010,3

no pet. ) (mem. op., not designated for publication ). This court has no jurisdiction over an appeal from an order denying a recusal motion in a post

- conviction proceeding. See Hamid v. State , Nos. 01

– 12

– 001 4 1

– CR & 01

– 12

– 00142

– CR, 2012 WL 1564332, at *1

– 2 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] May 3, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op. , not designated for publication ) (dismissing appeal for lack of jurisdiction because only Court of Criminal Appeals has ju risdiction in final post

- conviction felony proceedings). Accordingly, the State’s motion to dismiss is granted. This appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Any pending motions are dismissed as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Blan d, and Massengale. Do not publish. T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.2(b).
No. 64767.

#### C. J. Tower & Sons of Buffalo, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 60/16395 and 60/16396 (Buffalo).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of prepared or preserved pork similar in all material respects to that the subject of *C. J. Tower & Sons*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 36, C.D. 2100), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Waiver Request Support Document

81 Attachment 6 2012 Amendments to OBD II Monito ring Requirements That Potentially Establish More Stringent Requirements Amendments to 1968.2 A. General Requirements 1. Sections (d)(5.5.1) and (d)(5.5.2): Ignition Cycle Counter
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### APR 6 1999 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

STILLWATER CHRISTIAN CHURCH, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. CHURCH MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation,

Defendant-Appellee. No. 98-6258 (D.C. No. CIV-97-901-C) (W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before BALDOCK , BARRETT , and HENRY , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a dec ision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.-2-

Plaintiff-appellant Stillwater Christian Church app eals the district court’s order denying its post-trial motion to set aside th e summary judgment entered in favor of defendant-appellee. We exercise jurisdict ion under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm. Defendant was the insurer of plaintiff’s church property damaged in an arson fire. Defendant ultimately paid full coverag e for the damage, but plaintiff claims defendant’s delays in investigation and paym ent violated the policy and state insurance law, thereby entitling it to damage s, interest, and attorney fees. After the district court granted summary judgment t o defendant, plaintiff moved to set the judgment aside on the grounds that it wa s not supported by sufficient evidence, it was contrary to law, the district court improperly weighed the evidence, plaintiff was entitled to sums in additio n to the insurance proceeds, and newly discovered evidence dictated a different result. On appeal, plaintiff argues that the district court erred in denying its post-trial Motion for New Trial or Amendment of Judgment and/or Relief from Judgment. “We review an appeal from a motion to reconsider fo r abuse of discretion.” Herr v. Heiman , 75 F.3d 1509, 1515 n.1 (10th Cir. 1996). We have carefully reviewed the materials submitted by the parties as well as the applicable law and-3-

we find no abuse of discretion or reversible error. Accordingly, the judgment of the United States District Court for the WesternDistrict of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED for substantially the reasons stated in th e district court’s orders dated February 4, 1998 and May 19, 1998.

Entered for the Court
Bobby R. Baldock Circuit Judge
# C_2017104EN.01002101.xml

| 3.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 104/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/21

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 9 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa) — Portugal) — Euro Tyre BV v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-21/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 131 and 138 - Preconditions for the exemption of an intra-Community supply - VAT Information Exchange System (VIES) - Purchaser’s failure to register - Refusal to grant the exemption - Whether permissible))

(2017/C 104/30)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa)

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Euro Tyre BV

Applicant:

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 131 and Article 138(1) of the Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, must be interpreted as precluding the tax authority of a Member State from refusing to exempt an intra-Community supply from value added tax on the sole ground that, at the time of that supply, the purchaser domiciled in the territory of the Member State of destination and who was in possession of a valid identification number for the purposes of value added tax in that Member State is neither registered in the Value Added Tax Information Exchange System nor comes under a system of taxation on intra-Community acquisitions of goods, where there is no sound evidence pointing to the existence of fraud and it is established that the basic conditions of the exemption are fulfilled. In that case, Article 138(1) of that directive, interpreted in the light of the principle of proportionality, also precludes such refusal where the vendor was aware of the circumstances of the situation of the purchaser with regard to the application of VAT and was convinced that subsequently the purchaser would be registered as an intra-Community operator with retroactive effect.

---

(1)  OJ C 118, 4.4.2016.

1

---
##### 



Exhibit 31.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 15d-14
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Michael E. Seifert, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Virage Logic Corporation,
certify that:  1.
    I have reviewed this quarterly report of Virage Logic Corporation on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended December 31, 2004;2.
    Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;3.
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this 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
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-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:  a)
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being
prepared;b)
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
andc)
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal
control over financial reporting; and  5.
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):  a)
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb)
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have
a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting. Date: February 9, 2005 /s/ Michael E. Seifert
# C_2015302EN.01006701.xml

| 14.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 302/67 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 302/67

---

Action brought on 17 July 2015 — KPN v Commission

(Case T-394/15)

(2015/C 302/83)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: KPN BV (Den Haag, Netherlands) (represented by: J. de Pree and C. van der Hoeven, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission decision C (2014) 7241 final of 10 October 2014 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the internal market and the EEA agreement (Case M.7000 — Liberty Global/Ziggo), and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission decision C (2014) 7241 final of 10 October 2014 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the internal market and the EEA agreement (Case M.7000 — Liberty Global/Ziggo), and

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 2 and Article 8 of the Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) in that the Commission committed a manifest error in the assessment of the vertical effects of the concentration on the market for Premium Pay TV sports channels. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 2 and Article 8 of the Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) in that the Commission committed a manifest error in the assessment of the vertical effects of the concentration on the market for Premium Pay TV sports channels.

1

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 296 TFEU in that the Commission failed to state its reasons for not assessing the possible vertical anti-competitive effects on the market for Premium Pay TV sports channels. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 296 TFEU in that the Commission failed to state its reasons for not assessing the possible vertical anti-competitive effects on the market for Premium Pay TV sports channels.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 2 and Article 8 of the Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 in that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in the Decision with respect to the role and influence of Mr Malone in other undertakings active on the same markets. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 2 and Article 8 of the Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 in that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in the Decision with respect to the role and influence of Mr Malone in other undertakings active on the same markets.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation) (OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1).

1

---
EX-10.20





 Exhibit 10.20 

Spousal Consent 
 The
undersigned, Hong CAO, a People’s Republic of China (“China” or the “PRC”) citizen with PRC Identification Card No.: 330419198211234822, is the lawful spouse of Liaohan CHEN, a PRC citizen with PRC Identification Card No.:
330621198211048053. I hereby unconditionally and irrevocably agree to the execution of the following documents (hereinafter referred to as the “Transaction Documents”) by Liaohan CHEN on December 23, 2014, and the disposal of
the equity interests of Hangzhou Tuya Technology Co., Ltd. (“Hangzhou Tuya”) held by Liaohan CHEN and registered in his/her name according to the following documents: 

 

	 	(1)	 The Equity Interest Pledge Agreement entered into with Hangzhou Aixiangji Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter
referred to as the “WFOE”) and Hangzhou Tuya; 


  

	 	(2)	 The Exclusive Option Agreement entered into with the WFOE and Hangzhou Tuya; and 



 

	 	(3)	 The Power of Attorney executed by Liaohan CHEN. 



I hereby undertake not to make any assertions in connection with the equity interests of Hangzhou Tuya which are held by Liaohan CHEN. I
hereby further confirm that Liaohan CHEN can perform the Transaction Documents and further amend or terminate the Transaction Documents without the authorization or consent from me. 

I hereby undertake to execute all necessary documents and take all necessary actions to ensure appropriate performance of the Transaction
Documents (as may be amended from time to time). 












 I hereby agree and undertake that if I obtain any equity interests of Hangzhou Tuya which
are held by Liaohan CHEN for any reasons, I shall be bound by the Transaction Documents and the Exclusive Business Cooperation Agreement entered into between the WFOE and Hangzhou Tuya as of December 23, 2014 (the “Exclusive
Business Cooperation Agreement”) (as may be amended from time to time) and comply with the obligations thereunder as a shareholder of Hangzhou Tuya. For this purpose, upon the WFOE’s request, I shall sign a series of written documents
in substantially the same format and content as the Transaction Documents and the Exclusive Business Cooperation Agreement (as may be amended from time to time). 












 Hereby Confirm. 

 

			
		 	/s/ Hong CAO
	Name:	 	Hong CAO
	Date:	 	 December 23, 2014