alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In Re Asbestos Products :

Liability Litigation (No. VI) : MDL 875

:

See Attached List of Cases :

____________________________________X

O R D E R

This Court has previously administratively dismissed each of the cases listed on the attachment

to this order pending the determination of certain issues by the Bankruptcy Court. Those issues

having now been resolved, these cases are hereby reinstated for the purposes set forth herein.

Each of these cases was originally filed in the state court and subsequently either removed or

transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistric Litigation to the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The removal in each case was predicated upon the theory of

“related to” bankruptcy jurisdiction, vis-a-vis the bankruptcy filing in the United States District Court

for the District of Delaware by Federal Mogul Corporation or the bankruptcy filing by Armstrong

World Industries. A large number of similar cases were directly transferred or removed to the

Bankruptcy Court in Delaware the Third Circuit designated the Honorable Alfred M. Wolin as the

presiding judge. Having completed an extensive briefing and hearing process, Judge Wolin, on

February 8, 2002, issued his ruling that the Bankruptcy Court lacked jurisdiction in these matters and

thereupon ordered their transfer back to the various state courts. The order was appealed to the

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and on July 31, 2002, Judge Slovitor issued the

Court’s opinion upholding Judge Wolin’s decision. The Supreme Court denied cert and all avenues

for appeal appear to have been exhausted by the parties.

Case 2:02-cv-04339-MMB Document 5 Filed 10/09/2002 Page 1 of 2
The actions before this Court are all cases similarly situated with regard to their removal from

the state court. The Court can find no reason not to comply with Judge Wolin’s decision as it relates

to the removal of these cases to the federal court.

IT IS ORDERED that each of these cases is hereby reinstated and remanded to the State of

Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court from whence it was removed to this Court.

DONE this 3rd day of October, 2002.

BY THE COURT

___________________________

Charles R. Weiner S.J.

Case 2:02-cv-04339-MMB Document 5 Filed 10/09/2002 Page 2 of 2
No. 64059.

protests 320904-K, etc. (Galveston).

#### Ajax Distributors, Inc., by: W. R. Zanes & Company et al. v. United States,

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C.C.P.A. 130, C.A.D. 508), and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C.D. 1155), the cláim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 65420.

#### Sears, Roebuck and Co. *v.*United States,

protests 309035-K and 58/4193 (Portland, Oreg.).

*414Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Schmidt Pritchard & Co. et al.*(47 C.C.P.A. 152, C.A.D. 750), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
# May

# image1.jpg
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/YT657VT
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

I, Stephen H. Binet, President and Chief Executive Officer of Trenwick America
Corporation, hereby certify to the best of my knowledge and belief that this
Annual Report on Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d))
and that the information contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly
represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Trenwick America Corporation.

Date:  April 9, 2003


/s/ Stephen H. Binet
--------------------------------------
     Stephen H. Binet
President and Chief Executive Officer
# C_2017213EN.01001401.xml

| 3.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber Chamber) of 4 May 2017 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-98/16) (1)

1

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - Free movement of capital - Article 63 TFEU - Article 40 of the EEA Agreement - Inheritance taxes - Bequest in favour of not-for-profit bodies - Application of a preferential rate to bodies existing or legally constituted in Greece and to similar bodies outside Greece on a reciprocal basis - Different treatment - Restriction - Justification))

(2017/C 213/15)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Roels and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: M. Tassopoulou and V. Karra, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by adopting and maintaining in force legislation which provides for a preferential rate of inheritance tax for bequests made in favour of not-for-profit bodies which are established in other Member States of the European Union or the European Economic Area on a reciprocal basis, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 TFEU and Article 40 of the European Economic Area Agreement of 2 May 1992; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by adopting and maintaining in force legislation which provides for a preferential rate of inheritance tax for bequests made in favour of not-for-profit bodies which are established in other Member States of the European Union or the European Economic Area on a reciprocal basis, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 TFEU and Article 40 of the European Economic Area Agreement of 2 May 1992;

| 2. | Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 145, 25.4.2016.

1

---
EXHIBIT 32.2





STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002,





The undersigned, Amy E. Essex, is the Chief Financial Officer of First Federal of Northern Michigan Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”).





This statement is being furnished in connection with the filing by the Company of the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 (the “Report”).





By execution of this statement, I certify that to the best of my knowledge:





A)
the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and





B)
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods covered by the Report.





This statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the Report so that this statement will accompany the Report at such time as the Report is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.  It is not intended that this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





March 25, 2011

/s/ Amy E. EssexDated

Amy E. Essex
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTEREDPUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

To the Board of Directorsand Stockholders

INTAC International, Inc.

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statement on Form S-3 File No. 333-116871 and theRegistration Statement on Form S-8 File No. 333-115147 of INTACInternational, Inc. and in the related Prospectuses of our reports dated November 10,2005 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of INTACInternational, Inc. (and subsidiaries), management’s assessment of theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of INTACInternational, Inc. and subsidiaries, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)for the nine months ended September 30, 2005 and years ended December 31,2004 and 2003.

 

 
| /s/ KBA Group LLP      |   |   |   |
|------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| Dallas, Texas          |   |   |   |
| December 14, 2005 |   |   |   |

 

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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998             SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           9,855                   7,131
<SECURITIES>                                     9,984                   2,314
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,699                  16,397
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                   (879)
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                40,101                  30,245
<PP&E>                                           5,120                  15,945
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                 (3,340)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  45,910                  43,317
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,734                  10,303
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                            66                      65
<OTHER-SE>                                      32,110                  29,355
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    45,910                  43,317
<SALES>                                         56,173                  61,980
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                56,173                  61,980
<CGS>                                           29,249                  31,316
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   51,222                  63,117
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   291                    (90)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (179)                   (309)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,839                   (918)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,925                   (326)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,914                   (592)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,914                   (592)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0.5                  (0.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.48                  (0.09)


</TABLE>
Exhibit
23.1





CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS





We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement Nos.
333-146737 and 333-150450 and 333-150451 on Form S-8 of our report dated
February 10, 2009, relating to the financial statements of Bio Solutions
Manufacturing, Inc., which appear in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Bio
Solutions Manufacturing, Inc. for the fiscal year ended October 31,
2008.





/s/ Sherb
& Co., LLP





Sherb
& Co., LLP


New York,
New York





February
12, 2009
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-20516 Conference Calendar

JOHN R. STRICKLAND, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus GLENDA GIVENS; PACE, Lieutenant; OBERGON, Captain; TIMOTHY CARTER, Captain; L. N. HODGES; MORRIS M. JONES, Warden, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-95-CV-5418

- - - - - - - - - - October 22, 1998 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * John Strickland, Texas prisoner # 539477, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as frivolous. He argues that Glenda Givens retaliated against him by filing a false disciplinary charge because Strickland made a disparaging remark about Givens, that other prison officials conspired with Givens to have false disciplinary action taken against Strickland, and that the disciplinary proceedings and subsequent punishment violated his constitutional rights.No. 98-20516 -2- We review the district court’s dismissal of Strickland’s § 1983 action for abuse of discretion. See Siglar v. Hightower , 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997). A prisoner civil rights action is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact. Id. Strickland has not demonstrated that Givens’s filing of the disciplinary charge would not have occurred but for Strickland’s invocation of a constitutional right, and Strickland’s claim of retaliation lacks an arguable basis in law. See Johnson v. Rodriguez , 110 F.3d 299, 310 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 118 S. Ct. 559 (1997). Because the disciplinary sanction Strickland received consisted only of solitary confinement without extraordinary circumstances, his claim that false disciplinary charges filed against him resulted in a constitutional violation also lacks an arguable basis in law. See Pichardo v. Kinker , 73 F.3d 612, 612-13 (5th Cir. 1996). The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Strickland’s § 1983 action as frivolous.
AFFIRMED.
Case 2:02-cv-04302-MFA Document 10-7 Filed 08/05/2002 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:02-cv-04302-MFA Document 10-7 Filed 08/05/2002 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

WALKER AG SUPPLY, LLC, et al 

Complainant, 

v. 

WAHOO AIRPORT AUTHORITY, 

WAHOO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT 

Respondent. 

FAA Docket No. 16-14-08 

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME 

This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the abovereferenced complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted 

Airport Enforcement Proceedings, 14 CFR Part 16. Pursuant to 14 CFR Part 16, subpart B, 

the date by which the Director's Determination will be issued in this matter is hereby 

extended to June 21,2016. 

An extension of time is necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete determination in this 

case due to the complexity of the Record. 

__}jjs/16 

Date 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on March 15, 2016, I caused to be placed in the United 

States mail (first class mail, postage paid) a true copy of the foregoing document addressed 

to: 

Agent for Complainants: 

Mr. William Foster 

Better Airports, LLC 

4504 North Versailles Avenue 

Dallas, Texas 75205 

Counsel for Respondent: 

Mr. Larry S. Kaplan 

Mr. Keith Yamaguchi 

Kaplan, Massamillo & Andrews, LLC 

200 West Madison Street 

161h Floor 

Chicago, Illinois 60606 

Copies to: 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket 

FAA Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, AC0-1 00 

FAA Central Region, ACE-600 

/'· " 

C

iL!u4~ i audia Roberts 

Office of Airport Compliance and 

Management Analysis
# C_2015089EN.01003601.xml

| 16.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 89/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 89/36

---

Action brought on 20 January 2015 — Infinite Cycle Works v OHIM — Chance Good Ent. (INFINITY)

(Case T-30/15)

(2015/C 089/43)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Infinite Cycle Works Ltd (Delta, British Columbia, Canada) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina and J. Manresa Medina, lawyers)

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: Chance Good Ent. Co., Ltd (Changhua, Taiwan)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Applicant:

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘INFINITY’ — Application for registration No 1 0 8 35  478

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before OHIM:

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 October 2014 in Case R 2308/2013-2

Contested decision:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the contested decision and grant the trademark applied for; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested decision and grant the trademark applied for;

| — | Order OHIM and possible co-defendants to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM and possible co-defendants to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 8.1.b) and 8.5 of the Regulation (CE) No 40/94. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 8.1.b) and 8.5 of the Regulation (CE) No 40/94.

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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            FEB-26-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                 AUG-28-1999
<CASH>                                             1,277
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     66,059
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (1,788)
<INVENTORY>                                       72,795
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 142,612
<PP&E>                                            44,113
<DEPRECIATION>                                    27,867
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   264,416
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            111,687
<BONDS>                                          288,404
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             18,526
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                             156
<OTHER-SE>                                      (155,132)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     264,416
<SALES>                                          160,717
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 160,717
<CGS>                                            109,800
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    109,800
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  39,306
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                13,962
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (2,351)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        (939)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (1,412)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (1,412)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          0



</TABLE>
FROST & ZEFF

BY: MARK B. FROST, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

ID: 19284

PIER 5 AT PENN’S LANDING

7 N. COLUMBUS BOULEVARD

PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106

(215) 351-3333

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

____________________________________________

CAROL STITH, Individually and on : CIVIL ACTION NO.

behalf of all others similarly situated : 

: 02-4176

 v. :

:

MERCK & CO., INC. :

_____________________________________________

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

TO THE CLERK:

Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of Plaintiff Carol Stith with regard to the

above-captioned matter.

FROST & ZEFF

_______________________________

MARK B. FROST, ESQUIRE

Pier 5 at Penn’s Landing

7 N. Columbus Boulevard

Philadelphia, PA 19106

(215) 351-3333

Case 2:02-cv-04176-CRW Document 16 Filed 03/25/2004 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : CRIMINAL ACTION

:

 v. :

: NO. 04-CR-481

ANDREW ALEXANDER

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 7 day of August, 2008, upon consideration of

th

Defendant’s Motion to Reduce Sentence Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §

3582(c)(2)(Doc# 74)and the Government’s response thereto , it is

hereby ORDERED that said motion is DISMISSED as moot. Defendant is

deceased as of July 25, 2008 per information supplied by the Bureau

of Prisons.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ CYNTHIA M. RUFE, J.

_______________________

HON. CYNTHIA M. RUFE, J.

Case 2:04-cr-00481-CMR Document 76 Filed 08/07/08 Page 1 of 1
VACATE and DISMISS and Opinion Filed January 28, 2020 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-19-00457-CV
JACQUELINE SHELBY, TIM OTHY SHELBY AND/OR ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS 6108 LAKE VISTA DRIVE, DAL LAS, TEXAS 75249, Appellants V. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Appellee
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-19-01373-E



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Molberg, Reichek, and Evans Opinion by Justice Reichek Stating they have settled all outstanding disputes and that th e appeal has become moot
because appellee no longer owns the property at the center of t he controversy, the parties have
filed a joint motion to vacate the trial court’s judgment and d ismiss the case with prejudice. See

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(2). We grant the motion and, without regard to the m erits, vacate the trial
court’s April 4, 2019 judgment a nd dismiss the case with prejud ice. See id . 42.1(a), 43.2(e).

190457F.P05 /Amanda L. Reichek/ AMANDA L. REICHEK JUSTICE–2– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT

JACQUELINE SHELBY, TIMOTHY SHELBY AND/OR ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS 6108 LAKE VISTA DRIVE, DALLAS, TEXAS 75249, Appellants

No. 05-19-00457-CV V.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-19-01373-E. Opinion delivered by Justice Reichek, Justices Molberg and E vans participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date and witho ut regard to the merits, we VACATE the trial court’s April 4, 2019 final judgment and DISMISS THE CASE WITH PREJUDICE

. Subject to any agreement among the parties, it is ORDERED that appellee Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. recover its costs, if any, of this appeal from appel lants Jacqueline Shelby, Timothy Shelby and/or All Other Occupant s 6108 Lake Vista Drive, Dallas , Texas 75249.

Judgment entered January 28, 2020
No. 52520.

protests 848793-G, etc. (Los Angeles and San Francisco).

#### James E. Markham, Alien Property Custodian *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.