alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 60414.

protests 263947-K, etc. (New York).

#### Morganite, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of carbon powder similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Morganite, Inc.*v. *United States*(42 C. C. P. A. 207, C. A. D. 595), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
EXHIBIT 23.1



                [Letterhead Danziger Hochman Partners LLP]



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report on
Form 10-KSB of Metro One Development, Inc. for the year ended July 31, 2007
of our report dated October 15, 2007 included in its Registration Statements
on Forms SB-2 (No. 333-140005, 333-135212, 333-131963) and Form S-8
(No. 333-153406), as amended, relating to the financial statements and
financial statement schedules for the year ended July 31, 2007  listed in
the accompanying index.



/s/ Danziger Hochman Partners LLP
--------------------------------------------
Danziger Hochman Partners LLP

Toronto, Canada
December 16, 2008
No. P68/193.

protest 60/12156 (New York).

#### Novelty Import Co., Inc. *v.*United States, *1031Novelty Import Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

No. P68/194.

protests 66/38607, etc. (New York).

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of so-called “miniature hunting knives” similar in all material respects to those the subject of *M. Pressner*& *Co.*v. *United States*(56 Cust. Ct 489, C.D. 2686), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
April 21, 2018

R E L E A S E 5 . 4

 Release Enhancements

 Death Master File Full Data Refresh

 System for Award Management Entity 

Registration Records Field Widened

 Production Fix

Overview of Release

Release Enhancements

Death Master File Full Data Refresh

Description: In order to provide the most accurate, 

up-to-date death data to our Do Not Pay Portal users, 

the Death Master File will now undergo a full data 

refresh every quarter. The first full data refresh has 

been performed with this release. Due to the large 

number of initial corrections, users may notice an 

increase in a significant number of affected records; 

this number should decrease with future refreshes. 

When a user attempts to adjudicate or view a 

previously matched record to the Death Master File, 

there may be missing information in some data 

fields. This only affects records that were incorrectly 

matched as deceased and are now corrected as 

living. 

System for Award Management Entity 

Registration Records Field Widened

Description: When using Online Search and viewing 

matches to the System for Award Management 

Entity Registration Records data, users will now see 

the complete field instead of just a portion of the 

content, due to the column width being too narrow.

Production Fix

Multiple Adjudication Sorting 

Issue: When a user sorted matches in the Adjudicate 

Multiple Payments screen and selected [Load More] 

for an additional 100 matches, the intended sort did 

not apply to the newly loaded records. 

Resolution: Any newly loaded matches will be sorted 

according to the original column selection.
Federal Housing Finance Agency

Dan Fichtler – Senior Advisor for Capital Markets

Office of the Director

Dan Fichtler is a public policy professional focused on financial markets 

and the housing finance system. Fichtler joined FHFA as a Senior 

Advisor in the Office of the Director in October 2022. Prior to joining 

FHFA, he was Associate Vice President for Housing Finance Policy at 

the Mortgage Bankers Association. In that role, he managed a portfolio 

that included loan production issues and capital markets issues. Earlier in 

his career, Fichtler was a Policy Advisor at the U.S. Department of the 

Treasury, where he served on the staff of the Financial Stability Oversight Council. He has also

served as an advisor to the majority staff of the Senate Banking Committee, during which time he

assisted in the development of legislation focused on housing finance reforms. Fichtler holds a B.A.

in economics and political science from Colgate University and an M.P.A. from the Princeton

School of Public and International Affairs.
Magistrate Judges are authorized, with agreement of the parties, to try any civil

1

case, jury or non-jury, with appeals going directly to the Third Circuit. All cases assigned to

Judge Hart are given a firm trial date.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JOHN J. KORESKO, V, et al.

v.

JEFF BLEIWEIS, et al.

: CIVIL ACTION 

:

: NO. 04-769

:

:

ORDER

AND NOW, this 12th day of November, 2008, upon consideration of Plaintiffs’

Application Pursuant to Local Rule 41.1(a) (docket no. 134), it is ORDERED that the

Application is GRANTED and that the parties shall meet to discuss the nature and basis of their

claims and defenses, and the possibilities for a prompt settlement or resolution of the case. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall develop a proposed discovery plan and shall

submit to the Court, on or before January 9, 2009, a joint “Rule 16 Memorandum” that includes,

where applicable:

1. A proposed schedule for remaining pretrial proceedings setting forth the time limits:

 (a) to join other parties and to amend the pleadings;

 (b) to file non-dispositive motions;

 (c) to complete discovery;

 (d) to file pretrial memoranda pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(3)

and Local Rule of Civil Procedure 16.1(c);

 (e) to exchange exhibits;

 (f) to exchange experts’ reports; and 

 (g) to file dispositive motions.

2. A statement on each of the following:

(a) the prospects of amicable settlement;

(b) whether all parties agree to a referral of this case to U.S. Magistrate Judge Jacob

P. Hart for trial;1

(c) the estimated length of trial; 
(d) the basis for the Court’s jurisdiction; and

(e) any other matter that may facilitate the just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition

of this case.

3. A certification that all counsel have conferred and discussed each of the above matters

and approve the contents of the Rule 16 Memorandum.

Upon review of the parties’ Rule 16 Memorandum, the Court will issue a Scheduling Order

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) setting forth the dates for the remaining

pretrial proceedings, final pretrial conference, and trial.

BY THE COURT:

 S/ BRUCE W. KAUFFMAN 

BRUCE W. KAUFFMAN, J.
# C_2015328EN.01002901.xml

| 5.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/29

---

Action brought on 10 August 2015 — Foodcare v OHIM — Michalczewski (T.G.R. ENERGY DRINK)

(Case T-456/15)

(2015/C 328/26)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Foodcare sp. z o.o. (Zabierzów, Poland) (represented by: A. Matusik, 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: Dariusz Michalczewski (Gdańsk, Poland)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘T.G.R. ENERGY DRINK’ –Community trade mark No 5 689 237

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Procedure before OHIM:

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 May 2015 in Case R 265/2014-2

Contested decision:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the contested decision invalid in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the contested decision invalid in its entirety;

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

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
(Reap. Dec. 10903)

#### Madison Import Corporation *v.*United States

Entry No. 4000, etc.

(Decided March 2, 1965)

*Stein é ShostaJc*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement, enumerated in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, are before me for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

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

> 1. That the merchandise covered by the entries and subject of the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule of Cases which is incorporated herein, consists of guitars, etc., exported from Japan, and that, on the dates of exportation thereof to the United States, the market value or the price at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the *525usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States, were the invoice unit values plus f.o.b. charges set out on the invoices, but not including the buying commission.

> 2. That as to any of the merchandise covered by the entries the subject of the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule of Oases, which is included on the list of articles designated by the Secretary of the Treasury in T.D. 54521 as provided for in Sec. 6(a) of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, Public Law 927, 84th Congress, which is subject to appraisement under Section 402(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, that there were no higher foreign values for such or similar merchandise on the dates of exportation involved herein.

> 3. That all the merchandise covered by the appeals for reappraisement the subject of this stipulation was entered subsequent to February 27, 1958.

> 4. That the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule of Cases may be deemed submitted for decision on the foregoing stipulation.

The stipulated facts established that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise covered by the entries enumerated on the attached scheduled is statutory export value and that such value is the invoice unit prices, plus f.o.b. charges, less the buying commission charges, as set out on the invoices, and I so hold.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7208

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JAMES VASSELL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, 

Chief District Judge. (3:89-cr-00190-JPB-JES-1)

Submitted: February 18, 2010 Decided: February 23, 2010

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Vassell, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Thomas Camilletti, Thomas 

Oliver Mucklow, Assistant United States Attorneys, Martinsburg, 

West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

James Vassell appeals the district court’s orders 

denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motions for reduction 

of sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. United States v. Vassell, No. 

3:89-cr-00190-JPB-JES-1 (N.D.W. Va. May 20 & June 18, 2009). We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
NO. SCPW-12-0000077

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

GREG W. SCHOENLEIN, Petitioner,

vs.

CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT and STATE OF HAWAI#I,

Respondents.

 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

(S.P.P. NO. 11-1-0028)

ORDER

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, Duffy, and McKenna, JJ.)

Upon consideration of petitioner Greg W. Schoenlein's 

petition for a writ of mandamus, the respondents' answers and the

record of S.P.P. No. 11-1-0028, it appears that the State of

Hawai#i filed an answer in S.P.P. No. 11-1-0028 on March 2, 2012

and S.P.P. No. 11-1-0028 was disposed of on March 7, 2012. 

Petitioner's request for mandamus relief is moot. Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of

mandamus is denied as moot.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, March 27, 2012.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.

/s/ James E. Duffy, Jr.

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPW-12-0000077

27-MAR-2012

02:55 PM
EXHIBIT 31.2


                               INFICON Holding AG

                 Sarbanes-Oxley Act Section 302(a) Certification

I, Peter G. Maier, certify that:

      1.    I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 20-F of INFICON Holding
            AG;

      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 company as of, and for, the periods presented in this
            report;

      4.    The company's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
            establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
            defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the company 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 company, 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 company'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.

Date: March 14, 2005

/s/ Peter G. Maier

Peter G. Maier
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ROBERT and JOANN KUEHI :

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-4134

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 SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a

GlaxoSmithKline.

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-04134-CRW Document 9 Filed 10/02/2002 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with this annual filing of DNAPrint genomics, Inc., a Utah
corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended December 31,
2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I,
Monica Tamborini, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), 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 result of operations of the Company.


/s/ Monica Tamborini
----------------------------
Monica Tamborini
Chief Financial Officer

Date: May 11, 2005
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

JOSHUA EPHRAIM JONES, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

Respondent. 

No. 67976 

FILED 

APR 1 2016 

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE 

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction, pursuant to a 

jury verdict, of unemployment insurance fraud, conspiracy to unlawfully 

obtain or increase unemployment benefits, and obtaining money under 

false pretenses. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Carolyn 

Ellsworth, Judge. 

Appellant Joshua Jones contends that the evidence presented 

at trial was insufficient to support the jury's finding of guilt for obtaining 

money under false pretenses. Jones contends that separate acts may not 

be aggregated under NRS 205.380 and that the State produced evidence of 

separate acts involving an aggregate amount that exceeded $650, but not 

of any individual act that exceeded $650. Our review of the record on 

appeal, however, reveals sufficient evidence to establish guilt beyond a 

reasonable doubt as determined by a rational trier of fact. See Jackson v. 

Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); Origel-Candido v. State, 114 Nev. 378, 

381,956 P.2d 1378, 1380 (1998). 

The record shows that Jones discussed his unemployment 

benefits with his then-girlfriend by phone when he was incarcerated—and 

thus ineligible to receive unemployment benefits—and directed her to 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(01 1947A (41.40 
e"— 

6-3 J. 

as 

Cherry 

Gibbofrs 

keep filing his unemployment-benefits claims. She then logged into the 

unemployment-benefits phone system using his social security number 

and PIN on a weekly basis and falsely certified his eligibility to continue 

receiving benefits, received nine weekly payments totaling $1440, and 

used Jones' unemployment-benefits debit card to access this money. 

The jury could reasonably infer from the evidence presented 

that Jones counseled, encouraged, hired, commanded, induced, or 

otherwise procured another to obtain more than $650 by false pretenses. 

See NRS 205.380(1). As Jones first raises his aggregation argument on 

appeal, we will not consider his claim that the individual payments may 

not be aggregated. State v. Wade, 105 Nev. 206, 209 n.3, 772 P.2d 1291, 

1293 n.3 (1989); Merica v. State, 87 Nev. 457, 462, 488 P.2d 1161, 1163-64 

(1971). We therefore 

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED. 

cc: Hon. Carolyn Ellsworth, District Judge 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County Public Defender 

Attorney General/Las Vegas 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) I947A
Exhibit 32.1 Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxleyact of 2001.In connection with the Annual Report of Hartville Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB forthe period ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), each of Dennis Rushovich, Chief Executive Officer and President of theCompany, and Christopher R. Sachs, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; andThe information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.Dated: March 31, 2008         /s/ Dennis Rushovich   Dennis Rushovich, CEO          /s/ Christopher R. Sachs   Christopher R. Sachs,   Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting     Officer   
49
Before the Third Division,

February 15, 1949

No. 52877.

#### William J. Oberle, Inc., and Robert J. Werk *& Co. v.*United States,

petition 6568-R (New Orleans).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial the owner of Robert Werk & Co. testified that he supplied the appraiser with the correspondence and cables of offerings made him by Chinese exporters, together with all other information he had on the subject, and it was decided that the entered values were the proper values *244for the goods. Subsequently, upon the basis of information contained in an affidavit supplied by one of his competitors, the values were advanced. From the evidence presented the court was of the opinion that the petitioners acted in good faith without intention to defraud the Government of revenue or to conceal or misrepresent the facts or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.
Case No. 8,962.

#### MAGRUDER’S CASE.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 626.]1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Dec. Term, 1825.

Administrators — Notes Taken Personali-t — Decease — Action—Entry op Judgment.

If the administratrix of her deceased husband sell the goods and take notes payable to herself personally, bring ruit on one of the notes, and die, and • her administrator enter his appearance in the suit and obtain judgment, the court will not order the judgment to be entered upon the docket for the use of the administrator de bonis non of her husband, unless he can show that the sureties of the administra-trix are insolvent, and that the balance of her administration account is against her.

Mary Ann Magruder, administratrix of Thomas Magruder,

sold the goods of her intestate and took notes payable to herself personally. She brought suit upon one of the notes and died before judgment. Her administrator entered his appearance in the suit and obtained judgment. The administrator de bonis non on her husband’s estate moved the court to order the judgment to be entered upon the docket for his use.

Mr. Key, contra.

She has given an administration bond with sureties who are liable for this money. She may have paid debts upon the faith of these notes. She is liable upon her bonds only for the balance of funds which comes to her hands. It is better for her husband’s estate because her sureties are directly and immediately liable for the money, whether it be recovered from the defendant or not.

Mr. Jones, for the administrator de bonis non.

The administrator de bonis non has shown his title in equity to this money. To rebut this the administrator of Mrs. Ma-gruder must show that she has paid debts to this amount, or that she has fully administered all that came to her hands. If the debtor be insolvent and she has used due diligence, she would not be liable for this fund.

THE COURT

(THRUSTON, Circuit Judge, absent)

said they would not deprive the legal plaintiff (the administrator of Mrs. Magruder) of his legal right, unless the administrator de bonis non could show that the sureties of Mrs. Magruder were insolvent, and that the balance of her administration account was against her.