alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 2:04-cv-02626-JP   Document 11   Filed 06/07/05   Page 1 of 4

Case 2:04-cv-02626-JP   Document 11   Filed 06/07/05   Page 2 of 4

Case 2:04-cv-02626-JP   Document 11   Filed 06/07/05   Page 3 of 4

Case 2:04-cv-02626-JP   Document 11   Filed 06/07/05   Page 4 of 4
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CertificationPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofAXT, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30,2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Wilson W. Cheung, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“Section 906”), that, to the best of myknowledge:

 

(1) TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

 

(2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Dated: August 11, 2006 | By:    | /s/ Wilson W. Cheung    |
|-----------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                        |   | Wilson W. Cheung        |
|                        |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
ARS HomeNortheast AreaBeltsville, Maryland (BARC)Beltsville Agricultural Research CenterNational Germplasm Resources LaboratoryDocs

----

- Plant Inventory Books
- Atlas of Guatemalan Crop Wild Relatives
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT

7 June 2018 ([\*](#Footnote*))

(Removal from the Register)

In Case C‐674/16 P,

APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 29 December 2016,

**Guccio Gucci SpA,** established in Florence (Italy), represented by P.L. Roncaglia, F. Rossi and N. Parrotta, avvocati,

appellant,

the other parties to the proceedings being:

**European Union Intellectual Property Office****(EUIPO),** represented by S. Hanne, acting as Agent,

defendant at first instance,

**Guess ? IP Holder LP,** established in Los Angeles (United States of America), represented by D. McFarland, Barrister,

intervener at first instance,

THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT,

after hearing the Advocate General, P. Mengozzi,

makes the following

**Order**

1        By a document lodged via e-Curia on 16 May 2018, Guccio Gucci SpA and Guess ? IP Holder LP informed the Court that they had reached an agreement on the amicable settlement of the dispute giving rise to the present case, in which it had been agreed that each party would bear its own costs and, therefore, that it was no longer necessary to rule on the appeal of Guccio Gucci SpA. That letter must be interpreted as including a request on the part of Guccio Gucci SpA to discontinue the proceedings, submitted in accordance with Article 148 of the Rules of Procedure, applicable to appeals by virtue of Article 190(1) of those rules, which that party’s representative confirmed in a subsequent communication.

2        By a document lodged via e-Curia on 23 May 2018, the European Union Intellectual Property Office informed the Court that it had no objections to the proceedings being brought to an end, while requesting the Court not to order it to pay the costs.

3        Under Article 141(1) of the Rules of Procedure, read in conjunction with Article 184(1) thereof, a party who discontinues or withdraws from proceedings is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the other party’s observations on the discontinuance. In addition, Article 141(3) of those rules provides that, where the parties have come to an agreement on costs, the decision as to costs is to be in accordance with that agreement.

4        Since the European Union Intellectual Property Office confined itself, in its observations, to requesting the Court not to order it to pay the costs and no other party has sought that that party be ordered to pay the costs, it must be held that the European Union Intellectual Property Office is to bear its own costs.

5        In accordance with the agreement reached between Guccio Gucci SpA and Guess ? IP Holder LP, both those parties are to bear their own costs.

On those grounds, the President of the Court hereby orders:

1.      **Case C**‐**674/16 P is removed from the Register of the Court.**

2.      **The parties are to bear their own costs.**

Luxembourg, 7 June 2018.

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| A. Calot Escobar | | K. Lenaerts |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Registrar | | President |

---

[\*](#Footref*) Language of the case: English.
| The U.S. Army Air Forces in World War II

Preemptive Defense

Allied Air Power Versus Hitler�s V-Weapons,      1943�1945

Adam L. Gruen

In 1943, the Allies knew that Germany was developing Vergeltungswaffe      (vengeance) or �V� weapons that threatened to reverse the      course of World War II. But the Allies did not know exactly what the      weapons were or how to defend against them. Eventually, Allied       intelligence      and aerial reconnaissance identified two separate programs�      a pilotless aircraft bomb (V�1) and a ballistic missile bomb (V�2)�      that endangered London and other sites in southern England. The      Allies decided that the best defense was preemptive strikes against      any targets identified with the V-weapons programs, including launch      sites and supply depots. Allied leaders disagreed on how much and      what kind of air power should be diverted to the strikes, and on how      long such strikes should continue. Germany withheld launching V�1s      until after D-Day and did not launch V�2s until September 1944. With      Allied ground forces having returned to Western Europe in strength,      the German bombardment of London and other European cities      proved to be too little and too late to affect the outcome of the war.- Introduction
- V-Weapons   - The V-2 Rocket
  - The V-1 "Buzz Bomb" 
- Recognizing the Threat
- Round One: The Air Offensive
- Round Two: The V-1 Bombardment
- Round Three: The V-2s
- Modern Rocketry and Lessons Learned
- Suggested Reading
                            |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, John W. Lockwood, Chief Financial Officer of Annuity and Life Re
(Holdings), Ltd. (the Company), hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that (1) the Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2004 (the Form 10-Q), fully complies with requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and (2)
the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Date: May 17, 2004
    
    /s/  John W. LockwoodName:  John W. LockwoodTitle:  Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 23.1

October 31, 2005





Board of Directors
On The Go Healthcare, Inc.
85 Corstate Avenue
Unit #1
Concord, Ontario
L4K 4Y2

Dear Sirs:

This letter is to constitute our consent to include the audit report of On
The Go Healthcare, Inc. as of July 31, 2005 in the Registration Statement filed
on Form 10-KSB contemporaneously herewith and subject to any required
amendments thereto.


Yours very truly,

DANZIGER & HOCHMAN



/s/David Danziger
-----------------
David Danziger

DD/ekm

<PAGE>
Exhibit 32.2


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


      In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A of Sunshine PCS
Corporation (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Robert
E. Dolan, as Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his 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/ Robert E. Dolan
                                          Name: Robert E. Dolan
                                          Title: Principal Accounting
      Officer
Date: April 9, 2008
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

OTTO TRAVERS, : CIVIL ACTION

:

Petitioner, : NO. 04-5058

:

v. :

:

JAMES L. GRACE, ET AL., :

:

Respondents. :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 18th day of August, 2005, upon

consideration of the Report and Recommendation of United States

Magistrate Judge Jacob P. Hart (doc. no. 7), and with no

objections to the Report and Recommendation having been filed, it

is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and

ADOPTED;

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, is DENIED and DISMISSED; and

3. A Certificate of Appealability is NOT GRANTED, due

to a lack of probable cause. 

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J.

Case 2:04-cv-05058-ER Document 8 Filed 08/19/05 Page 1 of 1
Before the Third Division,

December 29, 1943

No. 49078.

#### Protest 98863-K of F. H. Leggett & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

At the trial it was stipulated between counsel that the merchandise was not imported and that the customs regulations relating to non-importation had been complied with by the importer. The collector was therefore directed to reliquidate the entry and make refund accordingly.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 95-60488

Summary Calendar

_____________________

RONALD JOSEPH RODGERS, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

RICK GASTON, Capt.; JOE PRICE, Sheriff;

BRUCE CARVER, Lt.; R. N. ELEUTERIUS, Member of

Harrison County Board of Supervisors; DAVID WHITE,

Member of Harrison County Board of Supervisors;

FRANK LAROSA, Member of Harrison County

Board of Supervisors; PHILLIP ALLEN, Member

of Harrison County Board of Supervisors;

C. T. SWITZER, JR., Member of Harrison

County Board of Supervisors,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

(1:93CV348BrR)

_________________________________________________________________

January 21, 1997

Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ronald Joseph Rodgers, Jr., Mississippi prisoner #84888, appeals

the judgment for the defendants following a bench trial on his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 claims. Rodgers contended in district court that,
- 2 -

while a pretrial detainee in the Harrison County Detention Center, he

slipped and fell on a floor that was wet because the air conditioning

unit either malfunctioned or was turned off, and that he received

inadequate medical treatment. He contends on appeal that he was

denied due process at his trial and that the district court abused

its discretion by refusing to appoint counsel to represent him.

We have reviewed Rodgers’ brief and the record, including the

memorandum opinion of the magistrate judge who tried the case

pursuant to the parties’ consent, and we find no reversible error by

the magistrate judge and no abuse of discretion in the refusal to

appoint counsel to represent Rodgers. See Rodgers v. Gaston, No.

1:93cv348BrR (S.D. Miss. July 7, 1995) (unpublished); Ulmer v.

Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982). Accordingly, the

judgment is

AFFIRMED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

KHALIL ABDUL HAKIM : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

:

JAMES ANGELUCCI, et al. : NO. 02-4266

O R D E R

AND NOW, this day of July, 2002, upon

consideration of plaintiff's "Pleading For Reconsideration Of

Order Denying The Plaintiff Motion To Proceed In Forma Pauperis"

(Document No. 3), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's request

for reconsideration is DENIED for the reasons stated in this

Court's Order of July 3, 2002. 

BY THE COURT:

 

EDUARDO C.

ROBRENO, J.

Case 2:02-cv-04266-ER Document 5 Filed 07/18/2002 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MARY DOE : CIVIL ACTION

:

 v. :

:

MATCH.COM, INC., et al. : NO. 04-938

ORDER

AND NOW, this ___ day of July, 2004, it is hereby ORDERED that the pre-trial

conference in the above-captioned matter is RESCHEDULED for July 20, 2004 at 3:00 p.m. in

Room #17614, United States Courthouse.

BY THE COURT:

________________________

JAMES T. GILES C.J.

copies by FAX on

to

Case 2:04-cv-00938-JG Document 15 Filed 07/19/2004 Page 1 of 1

MARY DOE v. MATCH.COM, INC. et al Doc. 15

Dockets.Justia.com
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CHEMI SPA : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

:

GLAXOSMITHKLINE : NO. 04-4545

MEMORANDUM

Bartle, J. September , 2005

This is an antitrust action for unlawful monopolization

pursuant to § 2 of the Sherman Act and § 4 of the Clayton Act. 

15 U.S.C. §§ 2, 15. Before the court is the motion of defendant 

GlaxoSmithKline ("GSK") for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on the grounds that this

action is barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

We are denying the motion for the reasons set forth in

this court's Memorandum and Order dated February 8, 2005 in which

we denied GSK's motion for judgment on the pleadings. See Chemi

SpA v. GlaxoSmithKline, 356 F. Supp. 2d 495 (E.D. Pa. 2005). 

There we held that "an antitrust claim based on baseless

litigation requires proof that the litigation was unsuccessful,

which can only be determined upon the termination of the initial

action." Id. at 500. Under the undisputed facts of record, GSK

cannot establish that Chemi SpA's action was untimely.

Case 2:04-cv-04545-HB Document 62 Filed 09/26/05 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CHEMI SPA : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

:

GLAXOSMITHKLINE : NO. 04-4545

ORDER

AND NOW, this day of September, 2005, for the

reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum, it is hereby

ORDERED that the motion of defendant GlaxoSmithKline for summary

judgment is DENIED.

BY THE COURT:

 

 J.

Case 2:04-cv-04545-HB Document 62 Filed 09/26/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 59463.

protest 238487-K (Philadelphia).

#### Fred Whitaker Company *v.*United States,

Johnson, Judge:

This is a protest against the collector’s assessment of duty on wool in the grease at 25)4 cents per pound of clean content under paragraph 1102 (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, T. D. 51802. It is claimed that duty was assessed on an excessive weight of merchandise.

The collector’s memorandum states that the importer has failed to pay the liquidated increased duties due and thereby has failed to establish a right of protest under section 514 of the Tariff Act of 1930. However, since the entry herein is a warehouse and not a consumption entry, payment of duties and charges is not a condition precedent to the filing of a valid protest. *Importers Sales Agents (J. L. Westland &*Son) *et al.*v. *United States,*30 Cust. Ct. 378, Abstract 57153.

At the trial, counsel for the plaintiff stated that plaintiff did not challenge the rate of duty assessed nor the percentage of clean content nor the amount of tare found by the Government. It was claimed that the weight of the wool in an uncleaned condition, or the gross greasy weight, was 66,557 pounds, rather than 68,200 pounds, as found by the Government, and that, after deducting the undisputed tare of 2,167 pounds, the greasy net weight was 64,390 pounds, which weight should have been used in calculating the clean content weight.

Counsel for the Government stated:

> The Government is willing to concede that the imported wool under protest was liquidated on an excessive weight, and that the entry should be reliquidated upon the basis of a greasy net weight of 64,390 pounds, which with a clean content yield of 53.5 percent results in a clean content weight of 34,449 pounds, as claimed by the plaintiff.

In view of this statement, we hold that duty should have been assessed at 25)4 cents per pound of clean content under paragraph 1102 (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified, *supra,*upon the basis of a clean content weight of 34,449 pounds.

The protest is sustained and judgment will be rendered for the plaintiff.
Before the Third Division,

September 5, 1951

No. 55855.

protest 61303-K (New York).

#### World Sponge Market *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
Case No. 13,698.

#### SWIFT v. HATHAWAY et al.

[1 Gall. 417.] 1

Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts.

May Term, 1813.

Payment — Deposit with Consent of Cueditoii.

If a debtor deposit money for his creditor with a third person, and the creditor assents thereto, or give the depositary a new credit upon the footing of such deposit, the original debtor is discharged.

[CitecMn Wright v. Crockery Ware Co., 1 N.

The action [by Jireh Swift, administrator of William Ross, against Stephen Hathaway and John W. Russell] was brought to recover the sum of 83431.87, alleged to be due on balance of account from the defendants to the intestate. On the trial, it appeared that the defendants were commission merchants at New York, and the action was brought to recover the balance due on a sale, made by them, of two thirds of the ship Neptune belonging to the intestate. The sale was made on the 1st of February, A. D. 1810, on a credit of four and six months, and notes were given by the purchasers accordingly. On the 16th of May, 1810, the defendants dissolved their partnership, and due notice was given thereof in the gazettes. John W. Russell, on the dissolution of the firm, was constituted the agent for settlement of all the partnership concerns, and immediately formed a new partnership with his brother Gilbert Russell, under the firm of John W. and Gilbert Russell. The notes were put into the hands of the new firm and collected by them, and duly credited in the account of the administrator; and due notice was given to him of all these facts. In September, 1810, he drew a bill on the new firm for part of the money so collected, which was duly paid. The residue remained in the hands of the new firm until they failed in the spring of 1811. There was considerable evidence in the cause, to show an express assent and acquiescence on the part of the administrator to the money remaining in the hands of the new firm.

W. Prescott, for plaintiff.

W. Sullivan and Harrison G. Otis, for defendant Hathaway.

STORY, Circuit Justice,

in summing up, stated to the jury, that if they were satisfied, that the notes were originally lodged in the hands of J. & G. Russell with the assent of the administrator; or if afterwards he assented to the collection of the money by them, or voluntarily left the money in their hands and ratified- their proceedings, the firm of Russell & Hathaway were discharged from all responsibility. If a creditor know that his debtor has lodged money in the hands of a third person for his account, and he assents to the proceeding, or gives a new credit to such person on the footing of such deposit, the original debtor is completely discharged.

The jury found a verdict, without difficulty, for the defendant Hathaway. Russell, the co-defendant, did not appear, and was defaulted. The court ordered a general judgment to be entered, that the plaintiff should take nothing by his writ.
----

| (1) | the      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for three months ended June      30, 2010 (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. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | Dated:  August      16, 2010          |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                 |   |
|   | /s/      Scott D. Dorfman                            |   |
|   | Scott      D. Dorfman                                |   |
|   | President,      Chief Executive Officer and Chairman |
|   | of      the Board (Principal ExecutiveOfficer)  |
# C_2017014EN.01001901.xml

| 16.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 14/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 14/19

---

Appeal brought on 24 June 2016 by 100 % Capri Italia Srl against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 19 April 2016 in Case T-198/14, Capri Italia v EUIPO — IN.PRO.DI (100 % Capri)

(Case C-351/16 P)

(2017/C 014/24)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: 100 % Capri Italia Srl (represented by: P. Pozzi, G. Ghisletti, F. Braga, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Inghirami produzione distribuzione SpA (IN.PRO.DI)

By order of 10 November 2016, the Court (Seventh Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered 100 % Capri Italia Srl to bear its own costs.

---