alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 10312)

Entry No. 195, etc.

#### MINNEAPOLIS Honeywell Regulator Company *v.*United States

(Decided August 7, 1962)

*John J. AtMnson*for the plaintiff.

*Joseph D. Guilfoyle,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

Counsel for the respective parties have submitted the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court:

> That this stipulation is limited to the items marked “A” and initialed KT by Kelly Tipps on the invoices covered by the entries and appeals for reappraisement enumerated in Schedule “A” hereto attached and made a part hereof.

> That the merchandise is identified on the Final List published by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (T.D. 54521) and accordingly was appraised under the provisions of Section 402a (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the said Customs Simplification Act.

> That on or about the date of exportation such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale for home consumption in Japan or for export to the United States.

> That on or about the date of exportation such or similar imported merchandise was not freely offered for sale in the principal markets of the United States.

> That the cost of production of the involved merchandise as defined in Section 402a (f) was the entered value of the merchandise in each instance.

> That the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in Schedule “A” may be submitted on this stipulation, the same being limited to the items marked “A” as aforesaid and abandoned in all other respects.

On the agreed facts, I find that tbe proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question, as hereinabove identified, is statutory cost of production, and hold that such value for the said merchandise is, in each instance, the entered value. As to all other merchandise *366included on the invoices, covered by the entries involved herein, the appeals for reappraisement are dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
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 Shoe Pavilion, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 29, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Dmitry Beinus, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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/ DMITRY BEINUS                                    |                                                                                                                                                |
|                                                      |                                                                                                                                                |
| **Chairman and Chief Executive Officer May 7, 2003** |                                                                                                                                                |
|                                                      |                                                                                                                                                     |  |

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for the purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
1

 The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact

or to present newly discovered evidence. Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir.

1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1171 (1986). A court should grant a motion for reconsideration

“only if the moving party establishes one of three grounds: (1) there is newly available evidence;

(2) an intervening change in the controlling law; or (3) there is a need to correct a clear error of

law or prevent manifest injustice.” Drake v. Steamfitters Local Union No. 420, No. 97-585,

1998 WL 564486, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 3, 1998) (citing Smith v. City of Chester, 155 F.R.D. 95,

96-97 (E.D. Pa. 1994)). “Because federal courts have a strong interest in finality of judgments,

motions for reconsideration should be granted sparingly.” Continental Casualty Co. v.

Diversified Industries, Inc., 884 F. Supp. 937, 943 (E.D. Pa. 1995). The moving party must show

more than mere disappointment with the Court’s ruling for reconsideration to be granted. Burger

King Corp. v. New England Hood and Duct Cleaning Co., 2000 WL 133756, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Feb.

4, 2000); Glendon Energy Co. v. Borough of Glendon, 836 F.Supp. 1109, 1122 (E.D.Pa.1993). 

In this case, the Court does not find that Defendant RJM Acquisition Fundings has satisfied the

requirements for the Court to grant a motion for reconsideration.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

RICHARD FARREN, : CIVIL ACTION

Plaintiff :

:

v. :

:

RJM ACQUISITIONS FUNDING LLC, :

Defendant : NO. 04-995

O R D E R

Gene E.K. Pratter, J. September 1, 2005

AND NOW, this 1st day of September, 2005, upon consideration of Defendant RJM

Acquistions Funding LLC’s Motion for Reconsideration (Docket No. 59) and the responses

thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED.1

BY THE COURT:

____________________________________

GENE E.K. PRATTER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00995-GP Document 62 Filed 09/01/05 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 32.2



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/A for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Keith G. Butler, Chief Financial Officer and Controller 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.
| | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |                                                       
|-------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 9, 2004 |  |                                                       
|                     | 
|                     |  | /S/    KEITH G.
BUTLER                                
|                     |  | Keith G. Butler Chief Financial Officer and Controller
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

 

Washington, D.C. 20549

 

Form 10-KA

 

 

[X] ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15 (d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGEACT OF 1934

 

For the fiscal year ended November 30, 2012

 

Commission File Number 000-33271

 

PURTHANOL RESOURCES LIMITED

 

(Formerly GLOBAL BIOTECH CORP.)

 

 

 

 

Address of Principal Executive Offices)

 

2711 Centreville Rd Suite 400

Wilmington, Delaware 19808

 

Issuer's telephone number: (302) 288-0658

 

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12 (b) of the Act: None

 

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12 (g) of the Act: Commonstock, par value $0.0001 per share Preferred stock, par value $0.0001 per share

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a well-known seasoned issueras defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act- [x] NO

 

Indicate by check markif the registrant is not required to filereports pursuant to Section 13 or 15 (d) of the Act- [x] NO

 

Check whether the issuer (1) filed all reports required to be filed by Section13 or 15 (d) of the Exchange Act during the past 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to filesuch reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days -Yes |X|

 

**Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submittedelectronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuantto Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period thatthe registrant was required to submit and post such files). [ ] Yes [X] No**

** **

Check if there is no disclosure of delinquent filers, pursuant to Item 405 ofRegulation S-K, is not contained in this form, and no disclosure will be contained, to the best of registrant's knowledge, indefinitive proxy or information, statements incorporated by reference in Part 3 of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form10-K- NO [x]

**Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large acceleratedfiler, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large acceleratedfiler,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. [] Large accelerated filer [ ] Accelerated filer [ ] Non-accelerated filer (Do not check if a smaller reporting company) [X] Smallerreporting company**

** ** 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as determinedin Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act) - NO [x]

 

Issuer's revenues for its most recent fiscal year: $0

** **

**As of August 26, 2013, the aggregate market value of the issuer'scommon stock based on its reported price on the OTC Bulletin Board held by non-affiliates of the issuer was approximately $114,903.**

** **

**At August 26, 2013, 82,073,890 shares of issuer's common stockwere outstanding**.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PURTHANOL RESOURCES LIMITED

(Formerly GLOBAL BIOTECH CORP.)

FORM 10-K ANNUAL REPORT
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------

              SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

            Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, the undersigned officer of GMX
Resources Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies that the Company's Annual
Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003 (the "Report"), fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.

Dated:        April 14, 2004                /s/ Ken L. Kenworthy, Jr.
             ----------------               ------------------------------------
                                            Name:  Ken L. Kenworthy, Jr.
                                            Title: Chief Executive Officer
Order issued October 20 , 201 4 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

________________________________________

No. 05

- 1 3

- 0 1434

- CR

No. 05

- 13

- 01435

- CR

________________________________________

CAL MAURICE BUTLER , Appellant



### V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, Appellee



### O R D E R

Before Justices O’Neill, Lang

- Miers, and Brown

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we GRANT the February 24, 2014 motion of

John Tatum for leave to withdraw as appointed counsel on appeal. We DIRECT the Clerk of

the Court to remove John Tatum as counsel of record for appellant. We DIRECT the Clerk of

the Court to send a copy of this order and all future corresponde nce to Cal Maurice Butler , TDCJ

No. 1427407

, Clements U nit, 9601 Spur 591, Amarillo, Texas, 79107

- 9606.

/Michael J. O'Neill/

MICHAEL J. O’NEILL

JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AND INCOME STATEMENT FOR THE COMPANY FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER
31, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO THE COMPANY'S FORM
10-Q FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      127,267
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                      2,493
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          25,767
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                         1,281
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                   6,273
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 163,081
<COMMON>                                            49
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       18,661
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             47,086
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                  65,796
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                            55,836
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                               4,130
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                    2,746
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                  34,573
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  163,081
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                       20,904
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             1,593
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      15,281
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      16,874
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                          4,030
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                (51)
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                   3,979
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         1,283
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,696
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                    2,696
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         1,152
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                        4,378<F1>
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         (1,581)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .55
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .54
<FN>
<F1>Total interest on bonds represents annual interest expense to be incurred
during fiscal year 2000 on long-term debt outstanding under first mortgage
bonds and long-term secured notes.
</FN>


</TABLE>
No. 49536.

#### Protests 64065-K, etc., of C. A. Andres et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Walkeb, J.

It was stipulated that the hides are the same in all material respects as those involved in *Rice*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 118, C. D. 807), which record was incorporated herein. In accordance therewith those hides and skins in the cases at bar entered for consumption or withdrawn from warehouse subsequent to the effective date of the Argentine Trade Agreement (T. *D.*50504) were held dutiable at 5 percent under paragraph 1530 (a) as modified, and *239those prior to such effective date were held dutiable at 10 percent under paragraph 1530 (a).
Before the First Division,

August 30, 1951

No. 55836.

protests 142704-K, etc. (Boston).

#### Dolliff & McGrath et al. *v.*United States,

*305Opinion by

Cole, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of Welsh Mountain wool the same in all material respects as the commodity passed upon in *Dolliff & McGrath*v. *United States*(25 Cust. Ct. 137, C. D. 1276), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

HARRY and MELVA QUILLEN :

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-4167

Plaintiffs, :

:

v. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION;

BAYER AG;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE, PLC;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE;

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM

:

:

:

:

:

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

:

Defendants. :

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

To the Clerk of the Court:

Kindly enter the appearances of Hope S. Freiwald, Aline Fairweather, Erin

Brennan and Kirstin J. Miller as attorneys for defendant GlaxoSmithKline PLC.

Respectfully Submitted,

_____________________________ _____________________________

Hope S. Freiwald Aline Fairweather

_____________________________ _____________________________

Erin Brennan Kirstin J. Miller

DECHERT PRICE & RHOADS

4000 Bell Atlantic Tower

1717 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793

(215) 994-4000

Case 2:02-cv-04167-SD Document 6 Filed 09/11/2002 Page 1 of 1
No. P68/176.

protests 61/6602 and 64/24364 (Philadelphia).

#### Morris Friedman and Morris Friedman & Co. *v.*United States,

Maletz, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of bags or baskets in chief value of rush similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Carson M. Simon & Co.*v. *United States*(55 Cust. Ct. 103, C.D. 2558), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Before the Second Division,

April 9, 1968

No. P68/199.

protest 66/6467 (New York).

#### Inter Maritime Fwdg. Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of woodworking machines similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Supreme Woodworking Machine et al.*v. *United States*(54 Cust. Ct. 368, Abstract 69204) wherein the court held that the woodworking machine and accompanying electric motor were separate entities rather than an entirety, the protest was dismissed and the matter remanded for further proceedings to a single judge sitting in reappraisement for determination of the separate value of the machines and motors in the manner provided by law (28 U.S.C., section 2636 (d)).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

THE PHILADELPHIA FLYERS, INC. : CIVIL ACTION

:

V. :

:

TRUSTMARK INSURANCE CO. : NO. 04-2322

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 25th day of October, 2005, inasmuch as this matter is in Civil

Suspense, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s counsel shall file a status report on this

matter on or before November 8, 2005. 

BY THE COURT:

 

JOHN R. PADOVA, J.

Case 2:04-cv-02322-JP Document 11 Filed 10/27/2005 Page 1 of 1

PHILADELPHIA FLYERS, INC. v. TRUSTMARK INSURANCE COMPANY Doc. 11

Dockets.Justia.com
# C_2018166EN.01001202.xml

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/12

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — J. Klein Schiphorst v Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen

(Case C-551/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation - Coordination of social security systems - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Articles 7, 63 and 64 - Unemployment benefits - Unemployed person going to another Member State - Retention of entitlement to benefits - Duration))

(2018/C 166/15)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Centrale Raad van Beroep

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: J. Klein Schiphorst

Appellant:

Respondent: Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen

Respondent:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 64(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems must be interpreted as not precluding a national measure, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, that requires the competent institution to refuse, as a matter of principle, any request to extend the unemployment benefit export period beyond three months, provided the institution does not consider that refusing that request would lead to an unreasonable result.

---

(1)  OJ C 30, 30.1.2017.

1

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DEBORAK WILLIAMS, :

Plaintiff : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

:

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, : NO. 04-CV-1502

Commissioner of Social Security, :

Defendant : 

ORDER

AND NOW, this day of , 2005, after careful and independent consideration of the

parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, and upon review of the Report and Recommendation

of Carol Sandra Moore Wells, United States Magistrate Judge, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation be APPROVED and ADOPTED;

2. The Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment be DENIED;

3. The Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment be DENIED in part and GRANTED

in part; and,

4. This matter be REMANDED to the Commissioner to: 1) proceed with counsel; 2)

allow Plaintiff to incorporate new evidence of her impairments into the

administrative record; 3) obtain a psychiatric consultative evaluation of Plaintiff’s

impairments; 4) obtain mental and physical functional assessments of Plaintiff’s

ability to perform work related activities; and, 5) re-evaluate Plaintiff’s disability

status. 

It is so ORDERED. 

 BY THE COURT:

 

 ______________________________

RONALD L. BUCKWALDER, J 

Case 2:04-cv-01502-RB Document 15 Filed 06/21/05 Page 1 of 1
No. 59454.

protests 179746-K, etc. (New York).

#### Baar & Beards, Inc., and Taub, Hummel & Schnall, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of silk squares or scarves similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *The Specialty House, Inc., Bryant & Heffernan, Inc., et al.*(42 C. C. P. A. 136, C. A. D. 585), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.