alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

 Parties include all persons, corporations or other business entities, and insurance companies with

an interest in the case, and each entity with an interest in the case must attend the conference. In the case of

corporate or other business entities, the corporate official with ultimate settlement authority is required to attend. 

Where an insurance company is involved, a representative with ultimate settlement authority is also required to

attend. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MONTEVERDE : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

:

PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES CORPORATION : NO.02-4214

:

:

ORDER

A Settlement Conference in the above-captioned case will be held on May 29,

2003 at 10:00am before the Honorable Linda K. Caracappa, United States Magistrate Judge, in

Room 3042, U.S. Courthouse, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106.

The Court assumes that settlement of this case is a real possibility, and the Court

has set aside the entire day for this conference. Parties are to remain present until expressly

released by the Court.

Counsel are directed to have clients with ultimate authority to settle

physically PRESENT in the courtroom for the duration of this conference.

1

 

Counsel are further directed to complete the enclosed Settlement Conference

Summary to be faxed or mailed to Chambers on or before May 22, 2003.

BY THE COURT:

 

Hon. Linda K. Caracappa

267-299-7640/267-299-5075 Fax

Date: April 7, 2003

cc: 

 

Case 2:02-cv-04214-MAM Document 16 Filed 04/07/2003 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection with the quarterly report of Shoe Pavilion, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period
ended June 30, 2007 (the "Report"), I, Dmitry Beinus, Interim Principal Financial Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to  §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and
2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

/s/ DMITRY BEINUS                   Interim Principal Financial Officer
                   August 9, 2007

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the SEC and is
not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in
such filing.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1160 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1160

 To include Livingston County, the city of Jonesboro in Union County, 
and the city of Freeport in Stephenson County, Illinois, to the Lincoln 
            National Heritage Area, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 17, 2017

  Ms. Duckworth (for herself and Mr. Durbin) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To include Livingston County, the city of Jonesboro in Union County, 
and the city of Freeport in Stephenson County, Illinois, to the Lincoln 
            National Heritage Area, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Abraham Lincoln National Heritage 
Area Amendment Act''.

SEC. 2. ADJUSTMENT OF BOUNDARIES OF LINCOLN NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA.

    (a) Boundary Adjustment.--Section 443(b)(1) of the Consolidated 
Natural Resources Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-229; 16 U.S.C. 461 note) 
is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``, Livingston,'' after ``LaSalle''; and
            (2) by inserting ``, the city of Jonesboro in Union County, 
        and the city of Freeport in Stephenson County'' after 
        ``Woodford counties''.
    (b) Map.--The Secretary of the Interior shall update the map 
referred to in section 443(b)(2) of the Consolidated Natural Resources 
Act of 2008 to reflect the boundary adjustment made by the amendments 
in subsection (a) of this section.
                                 <all>
```
# June

# image1.jpg
Case 2:02-cv-04302-MFA Document 10-12 Filed 08/05/2002 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:02-cv-04302-MFA Document 10-12 Filed 08/05/2002 Page 2 of 2
No. 52878.

#### Jovita Perez *v.*United States,

petition 6598-R (Laredo).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the time of entry, in the presence of the appraiser, the broker questioned the foreign manufacturer as to the value. He confirmed the invoice prices as being correct and at that time the appraiser had no other information available. Later, the appraiser notified the broker that the values of the candies were somewhat higher than the entered values and the broker was afforded an opportunity to amend the entry. In amending same, a bottle of ink was spilled thereon and a typist in the broker’s office in copying same inadvertently entered certain of the candy at $1.35 per kilo unit instead of per package. The evidence fully established that the petitioner was 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.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE ABRAHAM PEREZ-RODARTE,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 12-71652

Agency No. A079-286-704

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 22, 2014** 

Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Jose Abraham Perez-Rodarte, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal

from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of

removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial

FILED

JUL 28 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
evidence factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.

2006), and for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to remand, de Jesus

Melendez v. Gonzales, 503 F.3d 1019, 1023 (9th Cir. 2007). We deny the petition

for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Perez-Rodarte failed

to establish that he suffered harm rising to the level of past persecution when he

and his family were attacked by gang members. See Li v. Ashcroft, 356 F.3d 1153,

1158 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (describing persecution as an “extreme concept”). 

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Perez-Rodarte did not

demonstrate a clear probability of future persecution because he did not show that

he cannot relocate internally to avoid harm, see Ochave v. INS, 254 F.3d 859,

867-68 (9th Cir. 2001), or that the government cannot or will not control his

attackers, see Rahimzadeh v. Holder, 613 F.3d 916, 923 (9th Cir. 2010). The

record does not support Perez-Rodarte’s contention that the situation in Mexico is

analogous to the situation we described in Haiti in Desir v. Ilchert, 840 F.2d 723

(9th Cir. 1988). Thus, Perez-Rodarte’s withholding of removal claim fails.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Perez-Rodarte’s motion to

remand for consideration of new evidence. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c) (a motion to

reopen shall not be granted unless it appears to the BIA that the petitioner’s

2 12-71652
evidence “was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the

former hearing”). We decline to consider evidence that is not part of the

administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en

banc).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 12-71652
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-22-00040-CR

BENJAMIN ANDREW COLE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 432nd District 

Court

of Tarrant County (1583879D)

November 3, 2022

Memorandum Opinion by Justice 

Bassel

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgments. It is ordered that the judgments of the 

trial court are affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Dabney Bassel

 Justice Dabney Bassel
**EXHIBIT
      23.1**




**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS**




We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
      Form
      S-3 (Nos. 333-127254, 333-117256, 333-115571, 333-134911) and Form S-8 (No.
      333-106311) of our report dated March 13, 2007, with respect to the consolidated
      financial statements and management’s assessment that GMX Resources Inc. and
      Subsidiaries maintained effective internal control over financial reporting
      of
      GMX Resources Inc. and Subsidiaries, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
      for the year ended December 31, 2006.




We
      also
      consent to the reference to us under the heading “Experts” in such Prospectus.







Smith,
                Carney & Co., p.c.




Oklahoma
      City, OK


March
      13,
      2007
**Exhibit 32.2**

**Certification of Nevada Classic Thoroughbreds, Inc.  pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  regarding Annual Report on Form 10-KSB  for the year ended June 30, 2006**

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title  18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Nevada Classic  Thoroughbreds, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), doeshereby certify that, based upon her knowledge:

1. The Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended    June 30, 2006 (the "Form 10-KSB") fully complies with the    requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. Information contained in the Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of  the Company.

> 
 

| Dated: October 2, 2006 | By: /s/ Brad Brimhall                                   |
|------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------|
|                   |                                                         |
|                   | Brad Brimhall                                           |
|                   | Chief Accounting Officer/Acting Chief Financial Officer |

>
# C_2017095EN.01000201.xml

| 27.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/2

---

Appeal brought on 17 June 2016 by Novomatic AG against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 19 April 2016 in Case T-326/14: Novomatic v EUIPO — Granini France (HOT JOKER)

(Case C-342/16 P)

(2017/C 095/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Novomatic AG (represented by: W. Mosing, Rechtsanwalt)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Granini France

Other parties to the proceedings:

By order of 6 December 2016 the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.

---
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: � Annual report [electronic resource]**
 
1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001
 
SuDoc Number:A 13.66/1-2:
Item Number:0079-C-03 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000560414
 
June 19, 2018
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                      65,589,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               68,042,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           165,727,000
<PP&E>                                     287,144,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              12,144,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           1,391,548,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      173,765,000
<BONDS>                                    719,122,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       305,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 395,906,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             1,391,548,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           680,376,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              602,538,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            79,115,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          31,709,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (26,870,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 3,333,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (30,203,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (30,203,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.38)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.38)
        



</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

In connection with the QuarterlyReport of Bear Island Paper Company LLC (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), and pursuant to Section 302 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Peter M. Brant, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify that: 

 

(1) I have reviewed the Report; 

 

(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 thestatements 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 thefinancial 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 inExchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the Company and we have: 

 

(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the Company is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this Reportis being prepared; 

 

(b) evaluated theeffectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this Report (the “Evaluation Date”); and 

 

(c) presented in this Report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date; 

 

(5) The Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the Company’s auditors and the audit committee of the Company’s Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction): 

 

(a) all significant deficienciesin design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the Company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the Company’s auditors any material weaknesses in internalcontrols; and 

 

(b) any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Company’s internal controls; and 

 

(6) The Company’s other certifying officer and I have indicated in this Report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls orin other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.
List of Subsidiaries

Industries International Incorporated, incorporated in Nevada, the United States
of America

Broad Faith Limited, incorporated in the British Virgin Islands, 100% owned by
Industries International Incorporated

Shenzhen Kexuntong Industrial Limited, incorporated in Shenzhen China, 95% owned
by Broad Faith Limited

Shenzhen Wonderland Communication Science & Technology Company, Limited,
incorporated in Shenzhen, China, 68.73% owned by Shenzhen Kexuntong Industrial
Limited

Li Sun Power International Limited, incorporated in British Virgin Islands, 100%
owned by Industries International Incorporated

Wuhan Lixing Power Sources Company Limited, incorporated in Wuhan, China, 72.84%
owned by Li Sun Power International Limited

Wuhan Lixing (Torch) Power Sources Company, Limited, (Joint Venture with HSBC)
incorporated in Wuhan China, 70.7% owned by Wuhan Lixing Power Sources Company
Limited
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MARA FLAMM : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

:

SARNER & ASSOCIATES, P.C., et al. : NO. 02-4302

ORDER

AND NOW, this 2nd day of April, 2004, upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to

Amend Complaint; Motion of Attorney Defendants to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint Pursuant to Rules

12(b)91) and 12(b)(6); Memorandum of Law in Support of Attorney Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s

Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint or, in the Alternative, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

Count III of Plaintiff’s Proposed Amended Complaint; Defendant Jodi H. Brown, M.D.’s Opposition to

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint or, in the Alternative, Defendant Jodi H. Brown,

M.D.’s Motion to Dismiss Count III of Plaintiff’s Proposed Amended Complaint; Plaintiff’s Reply Brief in

Support of Motion to Amend Complaint and in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss of the Sarner

Defendants; Sur-Reply in Support of Attorney Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File

an Amended Complaint and Attorney Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Count III of Plaintiff’s Proposed

Amended Complaint, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (Docket Entry No. 32) is GRANTED IN PART

AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff’s Complaint may be amended to substitute “John Matusavage” for “John

Doe Process Server”. In all other respects, Plaintiff’s motion is denied.

2. Motion of Attorney Defendants to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint Pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and

12(b)(6) (Docket Entry No. 35) is DENIED.

3. Attorney Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Count III of Plaintiff’s Proposed Amended Complaint

(Docket Entry No. 35) is DENIED.

4. Defendant Jodi H. Brown, M.D.’s Motion to Dismiss Count III of Plaintiff’s Proposed Amended

Complaint (Docket Entry No. 36) is DENIED.

5.. A Telephone Status Conference is scheduled for April 29, 2004, at 10:00 a.m. in order to

discuss how best to proceed towards a resolution of this matter. Plaintiff’s counsel shall initiate this

conference call to (215) 597-6079.

BY THE COURT:

 

M. FAITH ANGELL

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:02-cv-04302-MFA Document 53 Filed 04/05/2004 Page 1 of 1
Case No. 6,663.

#### Ex parte HONER.

TCited in Ex parte Schaumburg, Case No. 12,-441. Nowhere reported; opinion not now accessible.]
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 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
Chief Financial Officer
Date:

                                       49
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ESPERANZA and MICHAEL ROCHA, :

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-4121

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-04121-RBS Document 9 Filed 10/04/2002 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit23.1**

 

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENTREGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

 

We consent to the incorporationby reference in Registration Statement No. 333-111412 on Form S-3,and Registration Nos. 333-101490 and 333-128896 on Form S-8, of ourreports dated February 29, 2008, relating to the consolidated financialstatements of General Maritime Corporation and subsidiaries (the “Company”),and the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financialreporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company forthe year ended December 31, 2007.

 

 

/s/ Deloitte &Touche LLP

 

New York, New York

February 29, 2008

 

----