alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Department of the Treasury 

Bureau of the Fiscal Service

Authorization for Release of 

Information Fax completed form to: (314) 418-4121

Centralized Receivables Service (CRS) 

1. TO: U.S. Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Fiscal Service (Fiscal Service)

FROM:

Name (include alias and maiden names): Mailing Address (include street address, P.O. box, suite no., city, state, zip code):

Social Security Number or Employer Identification Number: Telephone No.: Fax No.

2. I authorize Fiscal Service, its employees, agents, and contractors, to disclose to the following person:

REPRESENTATIVE:

Name (include alias and maiden names): Mailing Address (include street address, P.O. box, suite no., city, state, zip code):

Company Name (optional): Telephone No.: Fax No.

any and all information related to a receivable owed by me to the United States Government. 

3. Fiscal Service, its employees, agents, and contractors, are not required to inform me of disclosures made under 

this authorization.

4. This authorization will be valid for 6 months from the date of signing, unless sooner revoked by me in writing

and the revocation is received and processed by Fiscal Service at this address: 

5. CRS Servicing, P.O. Box 970014, St. Louis, MO 63197.

6. A photocopy or facsimile copy of this signed authorization has the same force and effect as an original. 

The person named in paragraph 1 must sign below. If signed by a corporate officer, partner, guardian, executor, 

receiver, administrator, trustee, or party other than the individual obligor, I certify that I have the authority to 

execute this form. A separate Fiscal Sserice Form 14 must be provided for each obligor.

Signature of Person Authorizing Disclosure Date

Print Name of Person Authorizing Disclosure Print Title of Person Authorizing Disclosure 

Privacy Act Statement: Collection of this information is authorized by 5 U.S.C. §§ 552a and 7701(c). This information will be used to identify your 

receivables owed to Federal agencies that use CRS services. This information will be disclosed to persons as authorized by you. Additional disclosures of 

this information may be to Federal agencies collecting your debt or issuing payments to you. The purpose of the additional disclosures will be to verify the 

accuracy of the information provided and to assist with proper application of payments to balances due, and pursuit of collection of any amounts remaining 

unpaid. Where the taxpayer identification number is your Social Security Number, collection of this information is required by 31 U.S.C. § 

7701(c). If you fail to furnish the information requested on this form, including your Social Security Number, Fiscal Service will not disclose to

third parties information concerning receivables owed by you and being collected through CRS. 

FS Form 14 (2-16) DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

BUREAU OF THE FISCAL SERVICE
NUMBER 13-14-00698-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN THE INTEREST OF E.L., M.R., AND H.R., CHILDREN

On appeal from the 156th District Court

of San Patricio County, Texas.

ORDER

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza

Order Per Curiam

This is an appeal of a final order terminating parental rights. Appellant’s brief in 

this matter was due on January 5, 2015. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a). Appellant has 

neither filed a brief nor a motion for extension of time to file the brief.

Appeals in parental termination and child protection cases are governed by the 

rules of appellate procedure for accelerated appeals, but include additional expedited 

deadlines and procedures. See TEX. R. APP. P. 28.4; TEX. R. JUD. ADMIN. 6.2(a). This 

Court is directed to ensure “as far as reasonably possible” that such appeals are brought 
2

to final disposition within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is filed. TEX. R. JUD.

ADMIN. 6.2(a). Given the nature of these cases and the shortened appellate deadlines, 

this Court does not favor motions for extension of time to file the record or briefs. In 

accordance with the limited time for consideration of these appeals, it is the policy of this 

Court to limit extensions of time to file a brief to one ten-day extension of time absent truly 

extraordinary circumstances. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(d).

Accordingly, we ORDER appellant’s counsel, Hon. Joel H. Thomas, to file 

appellant’s brief within TEN days of the date of this order. No further extensions of time 

will be granted absent truly exigent and extraordinary circumstances. The Clerk of this 

Court is ORDERED to serve a copy of this order on appellant by certified mail, return 

receipt requested.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

7th day of January, 2015.
No. 65407.

#### Le Clair Fish & Net Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 321449-K, etc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items marked “A” consist of synthetic gill nets similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 63947, the claim at 22% percent under paragraph 1006, as modified by T.D. 53865, supplemented by T.D. 53877, by similitude, was sustained. The items marked “B,” stipulated to consist of synthetic cord or twine the same as those involved in said Abstract 63947, were held dutiable at 30 percent under paragraph 1004(b), as modified by T.D. 51802, by similitude.
Exhibit 31.2 

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Bear Island Paper Company LLC (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), and pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Edward D. Sherrick, Vice President of Finance (Chief Financial Officer of the Company), certify that:

 

(1) I have reviewed the Report; 

 

(2) Based on my knowledge, this Report does not contain any untrue statementof 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 financialinformation included in this Report fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this Report; 

 

(4) The Company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the Company and we have: 

 

(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the Company is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this Report is being prepared; 

 

(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filingdate of this quarterly report (the “Evaluation Date”); and 

 

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

 

(5) The Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation, to the Company’s auditors and the audit committee of the Company’s Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

 

(a) all significant deficiencies in design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affectthe Company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the Company’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 significantrole in the Company’s internal controls; and 

 

(6) TheCompany’s other certifying officer and I have indicated in this 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 mostrecent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.
# C_2015337EN.01001601.xml

| 12.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 337/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 337/16

---

Action brought on 6 July 2015 — Työhönvalmennus Valma/OHIM (box shape)

(Case T-363/15)

(2015/C 337/18)

Language of the case: Finnish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Työhönvalmennus Valma Oy (Lahti, Finland) (represented by: S. Salonen and K. Parviainen, 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: (Representation of a tridimensional mark (Shape of box) — Application for registration No 12137337

Trade mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 May 2015 in Case R 1690/2014-2

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as it upholds the conclusion of the examiner that the mark applied for is devoid of distinctive character with respect to the goods concerned; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as it upholds the conclusion of the examiner that the mark applied for is devoid of distinctive character with respect to the goods concerned;

| — | grant registration of the mark or alternatively refer the trade mark application back to OHIM for further consideration; |
| --- | --- |

—

grant registration of the mark or alternatively refer the trade mark application back to OHIM for further consideration;

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

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1) of Regulation No 207/2009/Regulation No 2868/95; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1) of Regulation No 207/2009/Regulation No 2868/95;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(3) applied in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b). |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(3) applied in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b).

---
# C_2015198EN.01004401.xml

| 15.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 198/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 198/44

---

Action brought on 20 April 2015 — Costa v Parliament

(Case T-197/15)

(2015/C 198/60)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Paolo Costa (Venice, Italy) (represented by: G. Orsoni and M. Romeo, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Declare the decision of the President of the European Parliament of 25 February 2015 and all prior, connected or consecutive measures, including the debit note notified on 27 February 2015, to be null and void, pursuant to Articles 263 and 264 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the decision of the President of the European Parliament of 25 February 2015 and all prior, connected or consecutive measures, including the debit note notified on 27 February 2015, to be null and void, pursuant to Articles 263 and 264 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

| — | Order the European Parliament to pay the costs in their entirety. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Parliament to pay the costs in their entirety.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those relied on in Case T-15/15 Costa v Parliament.

Costa

Parliament

---
EXHIBIT 32.02

                            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 Montgomery Realty Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Marianne Duhaterova, 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 my knowledge and belief:

         (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 result of
                  operations of the Company.



/s/ Marianne Duhaterova
------------------------
Marianne Duhaterova
Chief Financial Officer
May 3, 2006

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version 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.
Document

Exhibit 10.24.5

SUPPLEMENT TO SUBSIDIARY GUARANTY
Reference is hereby made to the Amended and Restated Subsidiary Guaranty (as the same may be amended, restated, supplemented or otherwise modified from time to time, the “Guaranty”) made as of January 2, 2020, by each of the Material Domestic Subsidiaries of Arcosa, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Borrower”) listed on the signature pages thereto (each, an “Initial Guarantor” and together with any additional Subsidiaries of the Borrower, which become parties thereto and together with the undersigned, the “Guarantors”) in favor of the Administrative Agent, for the ratable benefit of the Holders of Guaranteed Obligations, under the Credit Agreement.  Capitalized terms used herein and not defined herein shall have the meanings given to them in the Guaranty.  By its execution below, the undersigned Arcosa Materials Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “New Guarantor”), agrees to become, and does hereby become, a Guarantor under the Guaranty and agrees to be bound by such Guaranty as if originally a party thereto.  By its execution below, the undersigned represents and warrants as to itself that all of the representations and warranties contained in Section 2 of the Guaranty are true and correct in all respects as of the date hereof.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, New Guarantor has executed and delivered this Annex I counterpart to the Guaranty as of this 24th day of December, 2020.
ARCOSA MATERIALS HOLDINGS, INC.


By:      /s/ Scott C. Beasley        
                            Scott C. Beasley
Vice President
Faulk, Scott (OST) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Cc: 

Subject: 

U. S. Dept ofTransportation 

Scott Faulk 

Patricia Alexander <palexanderl@ymail.com> 

Tuesday, April 07, 2015 11:43 PM 

Faulk, Scott (OST) 

m reeve@ reevecorp.com 

air transport 

- ·- u 11 'tiL.-1 ... ; '""' 

_-, -.. ·r·t~rJRTrl !0.' I . t· -· .0.' ·' ,J,\ :-~.--.: 1- n:::p::t-T'O~\'S .J-'- ..... ~tlr\,1 I. 

My name is Doris Kompkoff. I'm a resident of Tatitlek, AK and want to let you know that Reeve Air Alaska is 

very important to our village. He is dependable when we need freight or a flight to and from Anchorage. I 

support Mike Reeve, because we all can depend on him, he has a great schedule and is dedicated to our needs 

and understands how expensive flight costs are to us and gives us a fare rate so we can afford to get to where we 

need to go when we have to go. We all appreciate his professionalism and kindness. It's so comforting 

knowing we will have a safe, enjoyable flight when we need it. 

Doris E. Kompkoff 

P.O. Box 146 

Tatitlek, AK 99677 

Ph# 907-230-3416 

1
# C_2015294EN.01007901.xml

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/79 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/79

---

Action brought on 30 June 2015 — CG v OHIM — Perry Ellis International Group (P PRO PLAYER)

(Case T-349/15)

(2015/C 294/94)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: CG verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH (Gevelsberg, Germany) (represented by: T. Körber, 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: Perry Ellis International Group Holdings Limited (Nassau, Bahamas)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant:

Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark in black and white containing the word elements ‘P PRO PLAYER’ — Application for registration No 1 0 8 89  764

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before OHIM:

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 April 2015 in Case R 2439/2014-4

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.

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_2015320EN.01004401.xml

| 28.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/44

---

Action brought on 30 July 2015 — Satkirit Holdings v OHIM — Advanced Mailing Solutions (luvo)

(Case T-449/15)

(2015/C 320/61)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Satkirit Holdings Ltd (Douglas, Isle of Man) (represented by: M. Vanhegan, QC)

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: Advanced Mailing Solutions Ltd (East Kilbride, United Kingdom)

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 word mark ‘luvo’ — Application for registration No 11 244 324

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before OHIM:

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 May 2015 in Case R 877/2014-2

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;

| — | dismiss the AMS’s Opposition; |
| --- | --- |

—

dismiss the AMS’s Opposition;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs incurred by the Applicant before the Board of Appeal and the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs incurred by the Applicant before the Board of Appeal and the General Court.

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.

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 23, 2015 

# Order

June 23, 2015

149537 ( 54 )

In re WANGLER/PASCHKE, Minors. SC: 149537

COA: 318186

Sanilac CC Family Division :

07

- 035009

- NA

________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of the Family Defense Attorneys of

Michigan for leave to file an amicus curiae brief is GRANTED. The amicus brief will be

accepted for filing if submitted on or before July 22, 2015.
No. 50870.

#### Protests 102725-K, etc., of Selsi Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

It was stipulated that the mereha,ndise consists of aneroid barometers similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Selsi Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(15 Cust. Ct. 150, C. D. 962). In accordance therewith the claim at 27)4 percent under paragraph 372 was sustained.
# C_2015190EN.01002202.xml

| 8.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/22

---

Action brought on 27 March 2015 — Jaber v Council

(Case T-154/15)

(2015/C 190/26)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Aiman Jaber (Lattakia, 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-653/11; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the production of the file in Case T-653/11;

| — | 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.

---