alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 62998.

#### M. Pressner *&*Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 58/3590, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of shell water flowers the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 61346, except that the merchandise herein is in chief value of shell, the merchandise was held dutiable, as claimed, at the applicable rates in effect on the respective dates of importation under the pertinent trade agreements.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

 : CIVIL ACTION NOS.

SMYTHE : 02-4185

WALLACE : 02-4186

COLLINS : 02-4230

WOLFSON : 02-4253

STARMAN : 02-4261

MAXWELL : 02-4275

CLAUNCH : 02-4309

FONOONI : 02-4326

:

vs. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION, ET AL :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 8th day of July , 2002, the court having been

previously advised that the above action cannot proceed to trial and

disposition because of the following reason:

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending disposition of a

related action.

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending determination of

arbitration proceedings.

[ ] - Interlocutory appeal filed 

[x] - Other: Case is placed into suspense pending receipt of the

Case Transfer Order from the Judicial Panel on Multi

District Litigation transferring case to District of

Minnesota.

it is

ORDERED that the Clerk of Court mark this action closed for statistical

purposes and place the matter in the Civil Suspense File, and it is 

FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall retain jurisdiction; and that the

case be restored to the trial docket when the action is in a status so that it

may proceed to final disposition; this order shall not prejudice the rights of

the parties to this litigation.

BY THE COURT:

 

JOHN R. PADOVA, J.

Case 2:02-cv-04275-JP Document 2 Filed 07/08/2002 Page 1 of 2
Civ. 13 (8/80)

Case 2:02-cv-04275-JP Document 2 Filed 07/08/2002 Page 2 of 2
No. 52201.

protests 498696-G, etc. (New York).

#### Wm. Anderson Textile Mfg. Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Kinchedoe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-21-00013-CV

Judy FREEMAN,

Appellant

v.

Kundu JOHNSON, individually and as Independent Administrator of the Estate of James Phillip 

Johnson, deceased,

Appellee

From the 225th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020-CI-13953

Honorable Cynthia Marie Chapa, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 21, 2021

MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED; DISMISSED

Appellant filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). Because the motion does not disclose an agreement of the parties 

regarding the assessment of costs, we order all costs assessed against appellant. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.1(d)(absent agreement of the parties, costs are taxed against appellant).

PER CURIAM
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 Annual Report of Watair. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending March 31, 2011, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Christopher Malone, Chief Financial
Officer of Vyre Network (formerly, Watair, Inc.), 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 result of operations of the Company.



|                 | On behalf of: WATAIR, INC.                     
|---------------- | -----------------------------------------------
|January 26, 2024 | /s/ Christopher Malone                         
|                 | Chief Financial Officer, Vyre Network          
|                 | (Principal financial and accounting executive).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WILLIAM and ARLENE PARTIE :

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-4247

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-04247-LP Document 8 Filed 10/02/2002 Page 1 of 1
United States Department of Agriculture
United States Department of Agriculture
United States Department of Agriculture
United States Department of Agriculture
United States Department of Agriculture
United States Department of Agriculture
United States Department of Agriculture
No. 65425.

#### Howard Berg *v.*United States,

protests 60/19417, 60/19441, and 60/20042 (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of decorative after-dinner cups and saucers the same in all material respects as those the subject of *United States*v. *The Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co. a/c United China & Glass Company*(47 C.C.P.A. 1, C.A.D. 719), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 59468.

protests 171546-K, etc. (St. Albans).

#### A. N. Deringer, Inc. *v.*United States,

*311Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of beef similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Swift & Company et al.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 212, C. D. 1655), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
# C_2017402EN.01000602.xml

| 27.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 402/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 402/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Hanssen Beleggingen BV v Tanja Prast-Knipping

(Case C-341/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Jurisdiction - Article 2(1) - Jurisdiction of the courts of the place where the defendant is domiciled - Article 22(4) - Exclusive jurisdiction in proceedings concerned with the registration or validity of intellectual property rights - Proceedings to determine whether a person was correctly registered as the proprietor of a trade mark))

(2017/C 402/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hanssen Beleggingen BV

Applicant:

Defendant: Tanja Prast-Knipping

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 22(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as not applying to proceedings to determine whether a person was correctly registered as the proprietor of a trade mark.

---

(1)  OJ C 326, 5.9.2016.

1

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MARK and BRIDGET K. RITTHALER, :

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-4263

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-04263-WY Document 7 Filed 10/04/2002 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 99.01


                            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 period ending June 30, 2002, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Dinesh Maniar, 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 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/ Dinesh Maniar
------------------------------
Dinesh Maniar
Chief Executive Officer
August 16, 2002
# C_2016335EN.01004101.xml

| 12.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 335/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 335/41

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 11 July 2016 — Salvador Benjumea Bravo de Laguna v Esteban Torras Ferrazzuolo

(Case C-381/16)

(2016/C 335/55)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo, Sala Primera de lo Civil

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Salvador Benjumea Bravo de Laguna

Applicant:

Defendant: Esteban Torras Ferrazzuolo

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Is the claim for the recovery of ownership of a Community trade mark on grounds other than those set out in Article 18 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (1) and, in particular, in accordance with the cases provided for in Article 2(2) of Spanish Law 17 of 7 December 2001 on Trade Marks (BOE No 294 of 8 December 2001), compatible with EU law and in particular with that regulation?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.

1

---
Ex-99.2 a)


As of and for the year ended December 31, 2000, Cendant Mortgage Corporation
(the Company) has complied in all material respects with the minimum servicing
standards set forth in the Mortgage Bankers Association of America's UNIFORM
SINGLE ATTESTATION PROGRAM FOR MORTGAGE BANKERS. As of and for this same period,
the Company had in effect a fidelity bond and errors and omissions policy in the
amount of $110 million and $20 million, respectively.


Cendant Mortgage Corporation

/s/ Terence W. Edwards                 /s/ Martin Foster
-------------------------------------  ----------------------------------
Terence W. Edwards                     Martin Foster
President and Chief Executive Officer  Vice President - Savings Management Group
Samuel Petro Abraham, Plaintiff,
v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Civil Action No. Rabbi Moses Heinemann et al., ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

# FILED FEB - 42009 NANCYMAYERWHmINGTON.CLERK U.S. DISTRICTCOURT



# 09 0207

This matter is before the Court on its initial review ofplaintiff's pro se complaint and application for leave to proceed informapauperis. The Court will grant the informapauperis application and dismiss the case because the complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading requirements ofRule 8(a) ofthe Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure. Pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(a) ofthe Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure requires complaints to contain" (1) a short and plain statement ofthe grounds for the court'sjurisdiction [and] (2) a short and plain statement ofthe claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); see Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661,668-71 (D.C. Cir. 2004). The Rule 8 standard ensures that defendants receive fair notice ofthe claim being asserted so that they can prepare a responsive answer and an adequate defense and determine whether the doctrine ofres judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). Plaintiff, who claims to be homeless in Brooklyn, New Yark, sues a rabbi in Baltimore, Maryland, an organization in Brooklyn New Yark, and his "millionaire" wife, ComplaintCaption, but he has not set forth cogent facts from which a claim orthe basis offederal court jurisdiction may be discerned. Accordingly, the case will be dismissed by separate Order issued contemporaneously. 

## iJ. Date: January

# L,2009

2
No. 51309.

#### Protests 106371-K, etc., of Gamil Afana et al. (Los Angeles, etc.).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
#### WONG YANG SUNG v. CLARK, Atty. Gen., et al.

No. 3420.

United States District Court District of Columbia.

July 28, 1948.

Thomas Farrell and Leo J. Michalowski, both of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.

George Morris Fay, U. S. Atty., and Oliver Dibble, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Washington, D. C., for respondents.

HOLTZOFF, District Judge.

This is a writ of habeas corpus to review an order of deportation. The petitioner, whose deportation has been ordered by the Attorney General of the United States pursuant to the provisions of the Immigration Laws, contends that the proceeding was not conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.A. § 1001 et seq.

Section 7 of the Administrative Procedure Act, U.S.C.A. Title 5, § 1006, on which the petitioner relies, requires statutory hearings to be conducted before an examiner appointed pursuant to the provisions of the Act. The hearing in this case, as is customary in all deportation proceedings, was conducted by an Inspector or Board of Inspectors of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. If the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act are applicable, the hearing was not properly conducted.

The Court feels, however, that this requirement of the Administrative Procedure Act does not apply to hearings under the Immigration Laws, in the light of the following provision of Subsection (a) of Section 7 of the Administrative Procedure Act: “Nothing in this ehapter shall be deemed to supersede the conduct of specified classes of proceedings in whole or part by or before boards or other officers *236specially provided for by or designated pursuant to statute.”

• Section 152 of Title 8 of the United States Code, Annotated, which governs the authority and powers of Immigrant Inspectors, provides that such- Inspectors shall have power to administer oaths and to take and consider evidence touching the right of.- any alien to enter, re-enter, pass through or reside in the United States, and where such action may be necessary, make a written record of such evidence. In. the light of this provision it seems to the Court that deportation .proceedings are within the exception contained in Section 7(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act, because it is a specified class of proceedings before officers specially provided for by or designated pursuant to statute.

Accordingly, the Court is of the opinion that deportation hearings may be properly conducted by Immigrant Inspectors and that the requirement of the Administrative Procedure Act as to a hearing before specially appointed examiners does not apply.

The writ will be dismissed.
# C_2016059EN.01004101.xml

| 15.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 59/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 59/41

---

Action brought on 14 December 2015 — Justice & Environment v Commission

(Case T-727/15)

(2016/C 059/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Association Justice & Environment, z.s. (Brno, Czech Republic) (represented by: S. Podskalská, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the decision of the European Commission, Directorate General for Environment, dated 19 August 2015, reference number Ref GestDem No 2015/4284, by which a request for access to documents has been refused and the decision of the Secretary General on behalf of the European Commission dated 15 October 2015, reference number Ares(2015)4311297, by which a confirmatory application has been declined, null and void; and |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the decision of the European Commission, Directorate General for Environment, dated 19 August 2015, reference number Ref GestDem No 2015/4284, by which a request for access to documents has been refused and the decision of the Secretary General on behalf of the European Commission dated 15 October 2015, reference number Ares(2015)4311297, by which a confirmatory application has been declined, null and void; and

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant contends that the contested decisions are unlawful because they are contrary to: (i) Article 15 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (ex Article 255 TEC); (ii) Article 4 (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1); (iii) Article 6 (1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 (2); and (iv) The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention) in conjunction with the Council Decision of 17 February 2005 on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters (2005/370/EC) (3)

1

2

3

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ L 145, 2001, p. 43).

1

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ L 264, 2006, p. 13).

2

(3)  OJ L 124, 2005, p. 1.

3

---
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Report of FullCircle Registry, Inc., (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Norman L. Frohreich, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting 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:  (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/ Norman L. Frohreich Norman L. Frohreich, Chief Executive Officer & Principal Accounting Officer May 4, 2010
##### 



Exhibit 31.2

I, Salvatore A. Ranieri, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Bank United Corp.
Litigation Contingent Payment Rights Trust;

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 officer 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 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; and

c) 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 (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in
the case of an annual report) 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 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 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; and

b) 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.

|              |  |              |  |                                        
|------------- |  | ------------ |  | ---------------------------------------
|March 4, 2004 |  | By:          |  | /s/ Salvatore A. Ranieri               
|              |  |              |  |                                        
|              |  | Name:
Title: |  | Salvatore A. Ranieri
Litigation Trustee

-40-