alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>


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 this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Integrated
Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended September 30,
2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (i) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company at the dates and for the period indicated

      This Certificate has not been, and shall not be deemed, "filed" with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.


                                      INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, INC.

Dated: November 13, 2009              By:  /s/ Steven R. Blake
                                           ------------------------------
                                           Steven R. Blake
                                           Chief Financial Officer
# C_2015328EN.01001901.xml

| 5.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/19

---

Action brought on 27 July 2015 — Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines a.o./Council

(Case T-434/15)

(2015/C 328/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (Tehran, Iran); Hafize Darya Shipping Lines (HDSL) (Tehran); Safiran Payam Darya Shipping Lines (SAPID) (Tehran); Khazar Sea Shipping Lines (Anzali Free Zone, Iran); Rahbaran Omid Darya Ship Management Co. (Tehran); Irinvestship Ltd (London, United Kingdom); and IRISL Europe GmbH (Hambourg, Germany) (represented by: M. Taher, Solicitor, M. Malek, QC, and R. Blakeley, Barrister).

Applicants:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | order the Council to pay the applicants compensation, for an amount to be determined in the course of the present proceedings, but not less than USD 57 1 0 40  504, together with interest; and |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the applicants compensation, for an amount to be determined in the course of the present proceedings, but not less than USD 57 1 0 40  504, together with interest; and

| — | order the Council to pay the applicants’ costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the applicants’ costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on one plea in law, alleging that the EU Council’s imposition of restrictive measures on the applicants was a sufficiently serious breach of obligations intended to confer rights upon the Applicants and accordingly the non-contractual liability of the EU is engaged. This breach was the direct cause of significant material and non-material harm to the applicants for which they are entitled to compensation.

---
No. 61752.

#### Burleigh Brooks Co. *v.*United States,

protest 247545-K (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, O. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of photographic cameras similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Manca, Inc.*v. *United States*(38 Cust. Ct. 271, C. D. 1874), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
# C_2018072EN.01002501.xml

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/25

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München — Germany) — Hamamatsu Photonics Deutschland GmbH v Hauptzollamt München

(Case C-529/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Customs Code - Article 29 - Determination of the customs value - Cross-border transactions between related companies - Advance transfer pricing arrangement - Agreed transfer price composed of an amount initially invoiced and a flat-rate adjustment made after the end of the accounting period))

(2018/C 072/33)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Finanzgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hamamatsu Photonics Deutschland GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Hauptzollamt München

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 28 to 31 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 82/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996, must be interpreted as meaning that they do not permit an agreed transaction value, composed of an amount initially invoiced and declared and a flat-rate adjustment made after the end of the accounting period, to form the basis for the customs value, without it being possible to know at the end of the accounting period whether that adjustment would be made up or down.

---

(1)  OJ C 30, 30.1.2017.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         361,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               53,783,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   748,000
<INVENTORY>                                 29,218,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            85,626,000
<PP&E>                                      14,074,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,885,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              93,242,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       52,345,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    25,738,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  15,107,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                93,242,000
<SALES>                                    124,816,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           124,816,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              107,021,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,143,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,548,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             845,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             10,827,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 4,276,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          6,551,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 6,551,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.73
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.72


</TABLE>
No. 51925.

#### Semon Bache & Co. *v.*United States,

petition 6581-R (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

At the hearing the record in Abstract 46849 was offered an d received in evidence. From a perusal of that record, together with the evidence adduced herein, it was clear that the question of the proper value at which entry should have been made in the instant case was the subject of considerable litigation, and that the petitioner, in making entry as it did, acted in good faith and cooperated to the fullest extent with the Government officials. The petition was therefore granted.
Wo paces

IPAC Opertaional Metrics for March 2019

Volume by Transaction Type

Dollar Amount % of Total Dollar Amount| Number of Transactions} _% of Total Number of Transactions
Fiduciary (Investment & Borrowing) 12,662,940,523, 106} 99.69% 13,915) 12.26%)
Buy/Sell 33,918,781,825| 0.27%| 98,387] 86.68%)
Benefits (RITS) 5,916,843,735 0.053%| 406) 0.36%|
Check Aftermath (TRACS) 44,123,126) 0.00% 799 0.70%
Zero Dollar i!) 0.00%6| 0} 0.0076}
Grand Total - March 2019 12,702,820,271,793) 100.00%6| 113,507 100.00%6|
Grand Total - February 2019 15,510,301, 100,049) 100.00%6| 100.00%|
February to March Change -2,807,480,828,256)
Percentage Change -18.1%)
Grand Total - March 2018 16,416,719,684,417,

March 2018 to March 2019 Change -3,713,899,412,625|
Percentage Change 22.6%)
# C_2017104EN.01002602.xml

| 3.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 104/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/26

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 14 December 2016 — Junek Europ-Vertrieb GmbH v Lohmann & Rauscher International GmbH & Co. KG

(Case C-642/16)

(2017/C 104/39)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Junek Europ-Vertrieb GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Lohmann & Rauscher International GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

Must Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of the mark can oppose further commercialisation of a medical device imported from another Member State in its original internal and external packaging, to which the importer has affixed an additional external label, unless

1

| — | it is established that reliance on trade-mark rights by the proprietor in order to oppose the marketing of the overstickered product under that trade mark would contribute to an artificial partitioning of the markets between Member States; |
| --- | --- |

—

it is established that reliance on trade-mark rights by the proprietor in order to oppose the marketing of the overstickered product under that trade mark would contribute to an artificial partitioning of the markets between Member States;

| — | it is shown that the new labelling cannot adversely affect the original condition of the product inside the packaging; |
| --- | --- |

—

it is shown that the new labelling cannot adversely affect the original condition of the product inside the packaging;

| — | the packaging states clearly who overstickered the product and the name of the manufacturer; |
| --- | --- |

—

the packaging states clearly who overstickered the product and the name of the manufacturer;

| — | the presentation of the overstickered product is not such as to be liable to damage the reputation of the trade mark and of its proprietor; thus, the label must not be defective, of poor quality, or untidy; and |
| --- | --- |

—

the presentation of the overstickered product is not such as to be liable to damage the reputation of the trade mark and of its proprietor; thus, the label must not be defective, of poor quality, or untidy; and

| — | the importer gives notice to the trade mark proprietor before the overstickered product is placed on the market, and, on demand, provides him with a specimen of that product. |
| --- | --- |

—

the importer gives notice to the trade mark proprietor before the overstickered product is placed on the market, and, on demand, provides him with a specimen of that product.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ L 78, 24.3.2009, p. 1).

1

---
Case 2:04-cv-03822-JF Document 1 Filed 08/12/04 Page 1 of 9
Case 2:04-cv-03822-JF Document 1 Filed 08/12/04 Page 2 of 9
Case 2:04-cv-03822-JF Document 1 Filed 08/12/04 Page 3 of 9
Case 2:04-cv-03822-JF Document 1 Filed 08/12/04 Page 4 of 9
Case 2:04-cv-03822-JF Document 1 Filed 08/12/04 Page 5 of 9
Case 2:04-cv-03822-JF Document 1 Filed 08/12/04 Page 6 of 9
Case 2:04-cv-03822-JF Document 1 Filed 08/12/04 Page 7 of 9
Case 2:04-cv-03822-JF Document 1 Filed 08/12/04 Page 8 of 9
Case 2:04-cv-03822-JF Document 1 Filed 08/12/04 Page 9 of 9
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

BARI & RICHARD HIMES : CIVIL ACTION

V. :

 

HOME DEPOT, USA, INC. : NO. 02-2774

AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER

AND NOW, this 3rd day of October, 2003, IT IS ORDERED that the April 2, 2003,

Scheduling Order in the above-captioned matter is HEREBY AMENDED as follows:

1. A Final Pretrial Conference will be conducted in Chambers, Room 3041, United

 States Courthouse, at 9:30 a.m., January 12, 2004, with jury selection and trial to

 follow immediately thereafter.

2. TRIAL DATE: JANUARY 12, 2004, in Courtroom 5D.

 All other provisions of the Court’s original scheduling order remain in effect.

BY THE COURT:

 

Jacob P. Hart

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

cc: Faxed to:

 R. Stoloff, Esq.; K. Dubrow, Esq.

Case 2:02-cv-02774-BMS Document 20 Filed 10/03/2003 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:02-cv-02774-BMS Document 20 Filed 10/03/2003 Page 2 of 2
1995 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

12-18-1995

Chemetron Corp. v. Jones

Precedential or Non-Precedential:

Docket 94-3371

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1995

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 1995 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Chemetron Corp. v. Jones" (1995). 1995 Decisions. Paper 311.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1995/311

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

 

No. 94-3371 

 

CHEMETRON CORPORATION 

v. 

PHYLLIS JASKEY JONES; PAMELA JO SWANSINGER; 

SANDRA JASKEY HUJARSKI; PATRICIA HUJARSKI; 

TERESA HUJARSKI ROSS; JANICE JASKEY BUTVIN; 

FRANK BUTVIN; ROBERT BUTVIN; BRIAN BUTVIN; 

SUSAN BUTVIN; WALTER ANIELSKI; ARLENE VANS; 

YVONNE VANS BEKOSCKE; ANTHONY VANS; GREGORY 

VANS; CAROL SCHULTZ; MARY SHAFFER; BRITTANY 

CULL; STEPHANIE SCHAFFER, 

 Appellants. 

 

On Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Pennsylvania 

 (D.C. Civil Action No. 93-cv-01582) 

 

 

BEFORE: SCIRICA, ROTH and SAROKIN, Circuit Judges

Argued on February 3, 1995 

O R D E R

 IT IS ORDERED that the slip opinion in the above case, 

filed on December 18, 1995, be amended as follows: 

 On page 15, line 16, delete the word "known" and 

 replace it with the word "unknown". The full 
 sentence should now read: 
 For these reasons, we will affirm 

 the district court's rulings that 

 claimants were unknown creditors 

 and that Chemetron's publication 

 notice was sufficient. 

 /s/ Jane R. Roth 

 Circuit Judge 

Dated: December 21, 1995
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

SWEENEY : CIVIL ACTION

:

 :

 v. :

:

 : 

STANDARD INSURANCE : NO. 02-4043

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 31st day of July, 2002, in accordance with the court's

procedure for random reassignment of cases, it is hereby

ORDERED that the above-captioned case is reassigned from the calendar of

the Honorable Petrese B. Tucker to the calendar of the Honorable Michael M. Baylson.

 FOR THE COURT:

 JAMES T. GILES 

 Chief Judge

 ATTEST:

 ___________________

 MICHAEL E. KUNZ

 Clerk of Court

Case 2:02-cv-04339-MMB Document 2 Filed 07/31/2002 Page 1 of 1
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819

DCN: SE01755
THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION (CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

 

IN RE: IMMODIUM ADVANCED

ANTITRUST LITIGATION

CIVIL ACTION Nos. 

02-4105

02-4149

02-4180

02-4197

02-4362

02-4386

02-4387

02-4476

02-4530

02-6797

02-6993

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 26th day of June, 2003, upon consideration of the attached request

dated June 25, 2003, it is hereby ORDERED that the eleven cases listed above shall be 

consolidated with Civil Action Number 02-4093 and every pleading filed in the consolidated

Immodium Advanced Class Action shall bear the following caption: “In Re: Immodium Advanced

Antitrust Litigation.

BY THE COURT:

 

MARVIN KATZ, S.J.

Case 2:02-cv-04197-MK Document 10 Filed 06/26/2003 Page 1 of 1
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
ELECTRO-OPTICAL SCIENCES, INC.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  /s/ Joseph V. GulfoJoseph V. GulfoPresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)August 9, 2007/s/ Richard I. SteinhartRichard I. SteinhartVice President & Chief Financial Officer(Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)August 9, 2007
 
 *
    
    A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 has been provided to Electro-Optical Sciences, Inc. and will be retained by
Electro-Optical Sciences, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request. This written statement accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is
not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and will not be incorporated by
reference into any filing of Electro-Optical Sciences, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933
or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, irrespective of any general incorporation language
contained in such filing. 31
# C_2015190EN.01002902.xml

| 8.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/29

---

Action brought on 17 April 2015 — Compagnia Trasporti Pubblici and Others v Commission

(Case T-187/15)

(2015/C 190/33)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Compagnia Trasporti Pubblici SpA (Arzano, Italy); Atap — Azienda Trasporti Automobilistici Pubblici delle Province di Biella e Vercelli SpA (Biella, Italy); Actv SpA (Venice, Italy); Ferrovie Appulo Lucane Srl (Bari, Italy); Asstra Associazione Trasporti (Rome, Italy); and Associazione Nazionale Autotrasporto Viaggiatori (ANAV) (Rome) (represented by: M. Malena, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should annul those chapters and parts of the contested decision which are subject to appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-185/15 Buonotourist v Commission and Case T-186/15 CSTP Azienda della Mobilità v Commission.

In particular, the applicants allege infringement of Articles 93, 94, 107 and 108 TFEU, infringement of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 of 26 June 1969 on action by Member States concerning the obligations inherent in the concept of a public service in transport by rail, road and inland waterway (OJ 1969 L 156, p. 1), infringement of Regulation No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70 (OJ 2007 L 315, p. 1), lack of competence on the part of the Commission, infringement of Regulation (EC) No 1191/69, a misuse of powers, and infringement of the Communication from the Commission on interpretative guidelines concerning Regulation No 1370/2007.

---
<PAGE>

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 this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Integrated
Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended December 31,
2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (i) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company at the dates and for the period indicated

      This Certificate has not been, and shall not be deemed, "filed" with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.


                                      INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, INC.

Dated: February 25, 2009              By:  /s/ Steven R. Blake
                                           ------------------------------
                                           Steven R. Blake
                                           Chief Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

SARAH and HARRY GLADHART :

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-4312

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-04312-CMR Document 7 Filed 10/02/2002 Page 1 of 1