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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

GENERAL REFRACTORIES COMPANY : CIVIL ACTION 

:

v. : No. 04-3509

:

FIRST STATE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al. :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 3rd day of March, 2015, after a bench trial on November 3, 2014, and

consideration of the parties’ respective proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is

hereby ORDERED and DECLARED that the “Asbestos Exclusion” contained in the “Excess

Overlayer Indemnity” insurance policies, which were sold by defendant Travelers Casualty and 1

Surety Company, formerly known as The Aetna Casualty and Surety Company (“Travelers”), to

plaintiff General Refractories Company (“GRC”), is ambiguous. 

It is further ORDERED and DECLARED that the construction of the Asbestos

Exclusion that favors insurance protection for the policyholder, plaintiff GRC applies: That is,

the Asbestos Exclusion is not enforceable and is not effective to preclude insurance coverage for

GRC against underlying asbestos-related lawsuits, which sue “typically . . . for bodily injuries,

diseases, and fear of contracting the same, allegedly resulting from exposure to asbestoscontaining products manufactured, sold, and distributed by GRC.” Compl. ¶ 23. 

BY THE COURT: 

/s/ L. Felipe Restrepo

________________________ 

L. FELIPE RESTREPO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

The insurance policies are numbered, respectively, 01 XN 5442 WCA and 01 XN 5443 WCA. 1

Each policy was issued for the effective period, August 1, 1985 to August 1, 1986. Defendant Travelers’ trial

exhibits, D-1 and D-2. 

Case 2:04-cv-03509-LFR Document 637 Filed 03/03/15 Page 1 of 1
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-1907

___________________________

James A. Widtfeldt

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

James Daugherty, Revenue Officer; Internal Revenue Service; U.S. Treasury

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Nebraska - Omaha

____________

 Submitted: December 11, 2014

 Filed: December 16, 2014

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

James Widtfeldt appeals the district court’s without-prejudice dismissal of his

1

pro se civil action for failure to prosecute. Upon careful review, we conclude that the

The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, United States District Judge for the

1

District of Nebraska.
district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action without prejudice,

because Widtfeldt failed to establish that he had properly effectuated service against

defendants within 120 days after filing his complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m);

Bullock v. United States, 160 F.3d 441, 442 (8th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (standard

of review). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-2-
No. 56972.

#### Neuman & Schwiers Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 189902-K and 190534-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of grenadine the same in all material respects as that the subject of *La Manna, Azema & Farnan, Inc.*v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 144, C. A. D. 461), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 Certification Pursuant To
18 U.S.C. Section 1350
As Adopted Pursuant To
Section 906 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002 This certification is provided pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, and accompanies the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the period ended March 31, 2004 of Horizon Offshore, Inc. (the Company) as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report). I, Bill J. Lam, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify 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 results of operations of
the Company. /s/ Bill J. Lam  Bill J. Lam
President and Chief Executive Officer
May 17, 2004
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

GENERAL REFRACTORIES COMPANY : CIVIL ACTION 

 :

v. :

 :

FIRST STATE INSURANCE CO., et al. : NO. 04-3509 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT

AND NOW, this 9th day of September, 2015, upon consideration of the Motion of Plaintiff

General Refractories Company (“GRC”) for Prejudgment Interest and Entry of Judgment (ECF

document no. 686), and the Response of Defendant Travelers Casualty and Surety Company,

formerly known as The Aetna Casualty and Surety Company (collectively, “Travelers”) (doc. no.

691), and the parties’ Joint Stipulation as to Damages (doc. no. 685), it is hereby ORDERED that

Plaintiff’s Motion (doc. no. 686) is GRANTED. 

It is FURTHER ADJUDGED and ORDERED:

(1) JUDGMENT is entered in favor of Plaintiff GRC, and against Defendant Travelers, in

the amount of $21 million U.S. dollars ($21,000,000.00), which constitutes damages for the claims

of breach of contract and declaratory relief contained in the Complaint, as stipulated by the parties’

Joint Stipulation as to Damages (doc. no. 685); 

(2) PREJUDGMENT INTEREST is AWARDED in addition to the stipulated damages,

which interest is calculated at Pennsylvania’s six percent (6%)statutory rate for legal interest under

41 P.S. § 202, as detailed in Plaintiff GRC’s submission, the “Queue With Interest Calculations”

(doc. no. 690). As of today’s date, September 9, 2015, the AMOUNT of prejudgment interest

1

Case 2:04-cv-03509-LFR Document 694 Filed 09/09/15 Page 1 of 2
awarded is $15,273,705.00; 

(3) A TOTAL JUDGMENT is entered in favor of Plaintiff GRC, and against Defendant

Travelers, in the amount of $36,273,705.00 U.S. dollars;

(4) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961, POSTJUDGMENT INTEREST shall accrue on the 1

JUDGMENT of $36,273,705.00 U.S. dollars, and shall be computed in accordance with the statute

until that amount is paid to Plaintiff GRC. 

The CLERK of COURT is directed to mark this action CLOSED and TERMINATED,

and to remove this action from the Court’s active docket. 

BY THE COURT:

 s/ L. Felipe Restrepo 

L. FELIPE RESTREPO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Federal law mandates imposition of postjudgment interest. 28 U.S.C. § 1961. The statute provides 1

that “[s]uch interest shall be calculated from the date of the entry of the judgment,” and “shall be computed

daily to the date of payment.” Id. Postjudgment interest is calculated on the underlying judgment and award

of prejudgment interest. Skretvedt v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours, 372 F.3d 193, 217 (3d Cir. 2004) (citing Sun

Ship, Inc. v. Matson Navigation Co., 785 F.2d 59, 63 (3d Cir. 1986)). See generally, id. (citing Caffey v.

UNUM Life Ins. Co., 302 F.3d 576, 586 (6th Cir. 2002) (“postjudgment interest should be awarded on the

entire amount of the judgment, including any prejudgment interest”) (noting agreement among the Fourth,

Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuit Courts). 

2

Case 2:04-cv-03509-LFR Document 694 Filed 09/09/15 Page 2 of 2
Reap. Dec. 10955.

#### Standard Triumph Motor Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Reappraisements dismissed March 10, 1965.

Motion by plaintiff.
United States 

Environmental Protection 

Agency

EPA530-x-xx-xxx

December 1998 1E

www.epa.gov/osw

PA Solid Waste

and Emergency Response

(5305W)
?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?
como frutas, 

g

se descomponen y se transf

Después colocamos otra vez la m

para ayudar a crecer a las plantas.

Recuerda que debes ser cuidadoso

cuando guardes o muevas cosas

como la pintura, insecticidas, y

detergentes. Si entran al

agua o al suelo, pueden

hacerles daño a los seres

humanos, a las plantas, y

a los animales. Si seguimos

cada uno de estos consejos, todos podemos ayudar a nuestro planeta.

CONSEJOS ÚTILES...

Algunas palabras importantes que te ayudarán en esta aventura:

Recurso:

Los árboles, el agua, y la tierra son ejemplos de recursos naturales de la Tierra, que

la gente necesita para vivir.

Conser

Conser

var:

var significa ahorrar; por ejemplo,

conservar agua en lugar de desperdiciarla.

Reciclar:

Por ejemplo, las latas, los frascos, y las

botellas son cosas que se pueden reciclar, o sea, con las que se pueden hacer nuevos

productos.
2
PROTEGERLATIERRA
4
CODIGO:

=C

ê=S

3⁄4=A

Ã=O

©=P

¿=R

VIEJAS L3⁄4TAê

DE êO©A

VIEJAS 

BÃTELLAê DE

©LÁSTIO

VIEJAS

LL3⁄4NTAê
6

Lugar seguro

8

p

rar donando ropa 

ahorrar recicla las latas, periódi, y bo

nuevas a partir de cosas recicladas consume menos dinero

energía, y recursos, por lo cual debes buscar los productos reciclados en la tienda. Otra manera de devolverle a la

Tierra lo que ella nos da es hacer abono. Los restos como

frutas , veget, y hojas, se ponen en una pila, donde se

descomponen y se transforman en algo similar a la tierra.

Después colocamos otra vez la mezcla en la tierra para

ayudar a crecer a las plant. Recuerda que debes ser cuidadoso cuando guardes o muevas cosas como la pintu,

insecti, y detergen. Si entran al agua o al suelo, pueden

hacerles daño a los ser , a las , y a los animales. Si 

seguimos cada uno de estos consejos, todos podemos 

ayudar a nuestro planeta.
Lugar Seguro

5

CODIGO:

=C

ê=S

3⁄4=A

Ã=O

©=P

¿=R

VIEJAS L3⁄4TAê

DE êO©A

VIEJAS 

BÃTELLAê DE

©LÁSTIO

VIEJAS

LL3⁄4NTAê

Añade

—las frutas

—las verduras

—las hojas

—la hierba

a este dibujo

Manéjese con cuidado ¿Qué es el abono?

CODIGO:

$

Viejas latas

de sopa

Viejas botellas

de plastico

Viejas

llantas
2 Impreso en papel que contiene por lo menos 20 por ciento de fibras postconsumidores.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council

          - [Docket No. AS23-19]

# AGENCY:

Appraisal Subcommittee of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting; cancellation.

The Open Meeting, which was published in accordance with Section 1104(b) of Title XI of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, as amended, at 88 FR 77320, November 9, 2023 and scheduled for Wednesday, November 15, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. ET, has been cancelled.

James R. Park,

Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 2023-25281 Filed 11-15-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6700-01-P
In connection with the Annual Report of Citizens First Bancorp, Inc., (the Company) on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Marshall J. Campbell, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as enacted pursuant to § 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 results of operations of the Company as of and for the period
covered by the Report.
 /s/ Marshall J. CampbellMarshall J. CampbellChief Executive Officer
April 15, 2009 
 *
    
    A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been
provided to Citizens First Bancorp, Inc. and will be retained by Citizens First Bancorp, Inc.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. 106
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

December 16, 2011 

t1213 

Order 

 

December 16, 2011 

143883 

AYED ABOONA, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 143883 

 COA: 297584 

Wayne CC: 09-008162-NF 

GREAT WEST CASUALTY COMPANY, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Chief Justice, a stipulation signed by counsel for the parties 

agreeing to the dismissal of this application for leave to appeal is considered, and the 

application for leave to appeal is DISMISSED with prejudice and without costs.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7269
GARY WOOD HEDGEPETH, Petitioner - Appellant, versus TOM C. MARTIN, Respondent - Appellee, and FRANKLIN FREEMAN, Respondent.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-183-5-BO) Submitted: December 18, 1997 Decided: January 7, 1998 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary Wood Hedgepeth, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate ofappealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Hedgepeth v. Martin , No. CA-97-183-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Aug. 12, 1997). We deny Appellant's motion for production of documents.We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# C_2016211EN.01002901.xml

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/29

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München (Germany) lodged on 17 March 2016 — Tigers GmbH v Hauptzollamt Landshut

(Case C-156/16)

(2016/C 211/37)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Tigers GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Landshut

Questions referred

| I. | Does Article 1(3) of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 412/2013 (1) of 13 May 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in the People’s Republic of China allow a valid commercial invoice presented for the purposes of the initial fixing of a definitive anti-dumping duty to be submitted retrospectively where all the other conditions necessary for obtaining an individual anti-dumping duty rate are satisfied? |
| --- | --- |

I.

Does Article 1(3) of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 412/2013 (1) of 13 May 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in the People’s Republic of China allow a valid commercial invoice presented for the purposes of the initial fixing of a definitive anti-dumping duty to be submitted retrospectively where all the other conditions necessary for obtaining an individual anti-dumping duty rate are satisfied?

| II. | In the event that the first question is answered in the negative:
  Does Article 78 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (2) of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000, preclude the customs authority, in the course of a revision procedure, from refusing to refund an anti-dumping duty on the ground that the declarant did not present a valid commercial invoice until after the customs declaration had been made? |
| --- | --- |

II.

In the event that the first question is answered in the negative:

Does Article 78 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (2) of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000, preclude the customs authority, in the course of a revision procedure, from refusing to refund an anti-dumping duty on the ground that the declarant did not present a valid commercial invoice until after the customs declaration had been made?

---

(1)  OJ 2013 L 131, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.

(3)  Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000 amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 2000 L 311, p. 17).

---
**Exhibit 14.1**

 

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

To the Board of Management and Supervisory Board of 

Allianz SE: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-13462 and File No. 333-139900) relating to the Allianz Employee Stock Purchase Plan for the North AmericanAllianz Group Companies of our reports dated March 19, 2008, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Allianz SE and its subsidiaries as of December 31, 2007 and 2006, and the related consolidated income statements, consolidatedstatements of changes in equity, and consolidated statements of cash flow for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2007, and the financial statement schedules and the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting as of December 31, 2007, which reports appear in the December 31, 2007 annual report on Form 20-F of Allianz SE. 

KPMG DeutscheTreuhand-Gesellschaft 

Aktiengesellschaft 

Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft 

Munich, Germany 

March 19, 2008
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2015-0077 Directorate Identifier: 2013-NM-254-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Service Bulletin 

Inspection 1.0 $ 85.00 $0 $ 85.00 4 $ 340.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 340

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

SB modification 1.0 $ 85.00 $0 $ 85.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs): All airplanes 

will be covered under warranty with no charge for labor hours.
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
# C_2017078EN.01003001.xml

| 13.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2017 — Coesia v EUIPO (Representation of two red oblique curves)

(Case T-130/16) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Application for registration of an EU figurative mark representing two red oblique curves - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to assess the distinctiveness of a mark by reference to the perception which the relevant public has of it))

(2017/C 078/41)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Coesia SpA (Bologna, Italy) (represented by: S. Rizzo, Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 January 2016 (Case R 1933/2015-2) concerning an application for registration of a figurative sign representing two red oblique curves.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 26 January 2016 (Case R 1933/2015-2); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 26 January 2016 (Case R 1933/2015-2);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 165, 10.5.2016.

1

---