alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION
                          302 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT


I, Ronald Lui, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of The Art Boutique, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this annual report is being prepared;

b) evaluated  the  effectiveness  of the  registrant's  disclosure  controls and
procedures  as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of December 31,
2004 (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

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

<PAGE>

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
annual report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or in
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.

Date: April 19, 2004


/s/Ronald Lui
- -----------------------
Ronald Lui, CEO - CFO
# C_2017070EN.01001902.xml

| 6.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 70/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 January 2017 — Solenis Technologies v EUIPO (STRONG BONDS. TRUSTED SOLUTIONS.)

(Case T-96/16) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark STRONG BONDS. TRUSTED SOLUTIONS. - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 070/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Solenis Technologies LP (Wilmington, United States) (represented by: A. Sanz Cerralbo, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Fischer and A. Kusturovic, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 December 2015 (Case R 613/2015-2), concerning an application for registration of the word sign STRONG BONDS. TRUSTED SOLUTIONS. as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Solenis Technologies LP to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Solenis Technologies LP to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 156, 2.5.2016.

1

---
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-93,488-01 IN RE RYAN LEE SUMSTAD, Relator
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF M ANDAM US CAUSE NO 14-03-02535 IN THE 359 DISTRICT COURT T H F ROM MONTG OMERY COUNTY
Per curiam . O R D E R
Relator has filed a motion for leave to file a writ o f m an damus pursuant to the orig inal jurisdiction of this Court. I n it, he contends that he has repe atedly written to the Montgome ry County District Clerk, attempti ng to purcha se copie s of trial transc ripts, but the District Clerk has not responded. I n thes e circumstances, additional fac ts are neede d. Respondent, the District Clerk of Montgome ry County , is order ed to file a response stating whether h e received a reque st from the Relator for a statement of costs for his rec ords. I f the District Clerk rec eived such a reque st, he shall state the nature of his response and, if available , provide a copy of the response . I f the District Clerk2

rec eived such a reque st and did not respond, he shall provide his rationale for not responding
. This application for leave to file a writ of m an d am u s s h all be held in abey ance until Respondent has submitt ed the appropr iate response. Such res p o n se shall be subm itted within 30 day s of t he date of this order.

Filed: F ebrua

ry 16, 2022 Do not publish
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-12-00478-CR

Ex parte Theodoro Quinones

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY, 22ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. CR-12-0101-HC, HONORABLE WILLIAM HENRY, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Appellant filed a notice of appeal stating he wished to appeal from the trial

court’s interlocutory orders related to his Motion to Reduce Bond. The clerk’s record was filed on

July 12, 2012, and the reporter’s record was filed on October 8, 2012. Appellant’s retained attorney,

W. Paul Parash, made several attempts to file a brief electronically, but the briefs were rejected

because they were untimely, lacked a correct motion for extension of time, and had various errors

of form. On December 4, two weeks after Mr. Parash’s last unsuccessful attempt to file the brief

and a motion for extension of time, we sent him notice that the brief was overdue, requesting a

response by December 14. To date, Mr. Paresh has not responded to our communication, nor has

he filed a corrected brief and motion for extension of time.

We therefore order Mr. Parash to file a brief and motion for extension of time that

fully comply with the rules of appellate procedure and, if electronically filed, the rules governing

electronic filing no later than May 3, 2013. If appellant has decided he no longer wishes to pursue
this appeal, Mr. Parash should file a motion to dismiss no later than May 3, 2013. Failure to comply

with this order will result in Mr. Parash being called before this Court to show cause why he should

not be held in contempt for violating this order.

It is ordered April 23, 2013.

Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton and Rose

Do Not Publish

2
Case 2:05-cv-00020-JP   Document 1    Filed 01/04/05   Page 1 of 18

Case 2:05-cv-00020-JP   Document 1    Filed 01/04/05   Page 2 of 18

Case 2:05-cv-00020-JP   Document 1    Filed 01/04/05   Page 3 of 18

Case 2:05-cv-00020-JP   Document 1    Filed 01/04/05   Page 4 of 18

Case 2:05-cv-00020-JP   Document 1    Filed 01/04/05   Page 5 of 18

Case 2:05-cv-00020-JP   Document 1    Filed 01/04/05   Page 6 of 18

Case 2:05-cv-00020-JP   Document 1    Filed 01/04/05   Page 7 of 18

Case 2:05-cv-00020-JP   Document 1    Filed 01/04/05   Page 8 of 18

Case 2:05-cv-00020-JP   Document 1    Filed 01/04/05   Page 9 of 18

Case 2:05-cv-00020-JP   Document 1    Filed 01/04/05   Page 10 of 18

Case 2:05-cv-00020-JP   Document 1    Filed 01/04/05   Page 11 of 18

Case 2:05-cv-00020-JP   Document 1    Filed 01/04/05   Page 12 of 18

Case 2:05-cv-00020-JP   Document 1    Filed 01/04/05   Page 13 of 18

Case 2:05-cv-00020-JP   Document 1    Filed 01/04/05   Page 14 of 18

Case 2:05-cv-00020-JP   Document 1    Filed 01/04/05   Page 15 of 18

Case 2:05-cv-00020-JP   Document 1    Filed 01/04/05   Page 16 of 18

Case 2:05-cv-00020-JP   Document 1    Filed 01/04/05   Page 17 of 18

Case 2:05-cv-00020-JP   Document 1    Filed 01/04/05   Page 18 of 18
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : CIVIL No. 11-1264

:

v. : CRIMINAL No. 05-32-2

:

ALEXIS VILLEGAS :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 22nd day of March, 2012, it is ORDERED Defendant Alexis Villegas’s

Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Document 313) is

DENIED without an evidentiary hearing. As Villegas has failed to make a substantial showing of

the denial of a constitutional right, this Court finds no basis for issuance of a certificate of

appealability.

The Clerk of Court shall mark this case CLOSED. 

BY THE COURT:

 /s/ Juan R. Sánchez 

Juan R. Sánchez, J.
# MTS Cover

&"Calibri"&11&K000000TREASURY UNCLASSIFIED // EXTERNAL&1#		

# Table 1

&"Calibri"&11&K000000TREASURY UNCLASSIFIED // EXTERNAL&1#		

# Table 2

&"Calibri"&11&K000000TREASURY UNCLASSIFIED // EXTERNAL&1#		

# Figure 1

&"Calibri"&11&K000000TREASURY UNCLASSIFIED // EXTERNAL&1#		

# Figure 2

&"Calibri"&11&K000000TREASURY UNCLASSIFIED // EXTERNAL&1#		

# Figure 3

&"Calibri"&11&K000000TREASURY UNCLASSIFIED // EXTERNAL&1#		

# Figure 4

&"Calibri"&11&K000000TREASURY UNCLASSIFIED // EXTERNAL&1#		

# Figure 5

# Figure 6

# Figure 7

# Figure 8

# Table 3

&"Calibri"&11&K000000TREASURY UNCLASSIFIED // EXTERNAL&1#		

# Table 4

&"Calibri"&11&K000000TREASURY UNCLASSIFIED // EXTERNAL&1#		

# Table 5

&"Calibri"&11&K000000TREASURY UNCLASSIFIED // EXTERNAL&1#		

# Table 6

&"Calibri"&11&K000000TREASURY UNCLASSIFIED // EXTERNAL&1#		

# Table 6A

&"Calibri"&11&K000000TREASURY UNCLASSIFIED // EXTERNAL&1#		

# Table 6B

&"Calibri"&11&K000000TREASURY UNCLASSIFIED // EXTERNAL&1#		

# Table 6C

&"Calibri"&11&K000000TREASURY UNCLASSIFIED // EXTERNAL&1#		

# Table 6D

&"Calibri"&11&K000000TREASURY UNCLASSIFIED // EXTERNAL&1#		

# Table 6E

&"Calibri"&11&K000000TREASURY UNCLASSIFIED // EXTERNAL&1#		

# Table 7

&"Calibri"&11&K000000TREASURY UNCLASSIFIED // EXTERNAL&1#		

# Table 8

&"Calibri"&11&K000000TREASURY UNCLASSIFIED // EXTERNAL&1#		

# Table 9

&"Calibri"&11&K000000TREASURY UNCLASSIFIED // EXTERNAL&1#		

# image1.png

# image2.png

# image3.png

# image4.png

# image5.png

# image6.png

# image7.png

# image8.png

# image9.png

# image10.png
United States Department of Agriculture
United States Department of Agriculture
United States Department of Agriculture
United States Department of Agriculture
United States Department of Agriculture
Federal Housing Finance Agency

Constitution Center

400 7th Street, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20219 

Telephone: (202) 649-3800 

Facsimile: (202) 649-1071 

www.fhfa.gov 

FHLBank System at 100 Roundtable: 

FHLBank Support for CDFIs, Community and Economic Development 

Monday, February 13, 2023 | 9:30am – 12:30pm PT

1. What role does the FHLBank System play in supporting community development? What 

role should the System play? 

2. Are the Community Investment Program (CIP) and Community Investment Cash 

Advance Program (CICA) being appropriately leveraged? Are there barriers to greater 

participation and if so, what are they? 

3. How is economic development distinct from community development? What role does

the FHLBank System play in supporting economic development? 

4. How can the FHLBanks do more to support community and economic development 

directly? What types of FHLBank programs and services would be helpful? What about 

indirectly, including through partnerships? Who should the FHLBanks partner with? 

5. Are there challenges that CDFIs face in particular when engaging with the FHLBanks? If 

so, what are they? What challenges do the FHLBanks face when engaging with different 

types of CDFIs? How can these respective challenges be balanced and managed? 

6. What should the FHLBanks’ community and economic development programs look like? 

If we could start from a blank slate, what would be key features? 

To submit in advance: 

• What role do you believe the FHLBank System should play in supporting CDFIs, 

community, and economic development? What is the single most important change you 

would recommend to best position the System to fulfil that role? If no changes are 

needed, why not? 

• Do you believe structural changes to the FHLBank System (e.g., consolidation, change in 

membership eligibility requirements, etc.) would be necessary or advisable to fulfill the 

role(s) you envision? Why or why not? 

• Other bullet points outlining the points you would like to discuss
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of -- ) 

) 

Oatridge Security Group ) 

) 

Under Contract No. W911RX-16-D-0003 ) 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 61857 

Mr. Cy A. Oatridge 

President 

Raymond M. Saunders, Esq. 

Army Chief Trial Attorney 

CPT Richard Hagner, JA 

Trial Attorney 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The Board is in receipt of appellant's submission dated June 7, 2019, requesting 

that this appeal be dismissed without prejudice. Appellant asserts that it intends to file a 

new claim for a contracting officer's final decision. For good cause shown, the appeal is 

dismissed without prejudice. 

Dated: June 13, 2019 

~)-

LIS 8. YOUNG 

Administrative Judge 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 61857, Appeal of Oatridge Security 

Group, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT LANAR D KITC H ENS, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt, v. LEAC H , Se n ior De puty ; e t a l., De fe nda nts-Appe lle e s. No. 16-16335 D.C . No. 1:12-c v-00105-SJM -M JS M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Ste phe n Joseph M urphy

III, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm i tte d June 19, 2018 ** B e fore : GOODW IN, LEAVY, a nd SILVER

M AN, C irc uit Judge s. C a lifornia sta te prisone r Lana

rd Kitc h e ns a

ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s orde r de ny ing re lie f from fina l judgm e nt following a jury ve rdic t in Kitc he ns’ s 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion a lle ging tha t de fe nda nts subje c te d

him to unc onstitutiona

l c onditions of c onfine m e nt a n d re t a lia te d a ga inst him . W e have



# FIL ED JUN 21 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w for an a buse of disc re tion. De Sarac h o v . C

u s tom Food Mac hine ry

, Inc . , 206 F.3d 874, 880 (9th C ir. 2000). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in deny ing Kitc h e ns’ s m otion for re lie f from

fina l judgm e nt be c a

use Kitc he ns did not show a ny of the grounds for re lie f unde r Fe de ra l R u le of C ivil Proc e dure 60(b). Se e Fe d R . C iv. P. 60(b) (distric t c ourt m ay

grant re lie f be c a

use of, inte r alia , “ ne wly

disc ove re d e vide nc e ” or “ fra ud . . . , misre pre se nt ation, or misc o nduc t by an opposing pa

rty ” ); De Sarac h o , 206 F.3d a

t 880 (to e sta

blish fra ud for purpose s of R

ule 60(b), “ t

he m oving pa

rty m ust prove b y

c le ar and c onvinc i ng e vide n c e tha t the ve rdic t wa s obta ine d through fra

ud . . . a nd the c onduc t c om

pla ine d of pre ve nte d the losing pa rty from fully and fa i rly

pre s e nting thede fe nse .” ); C oastal Transfer C

o. v . Toy ota Motor Sale

s, U.S.A. , 833 F.2d 208, 212 (9th C ir. 1987) (“ Evide n c e is not

‘ n e w ly disc ove re d’ unde r the Fe de ra l R ule s if it wa s in them o ving pa rty ’ s posse s sion a

t the tim e of tria l or c ould ha ve be e n disc ove re d

with re a sona

b le dilige n c e .” ). The re c ord doe s not support Kitc he ns’ s c onte ntion tha

t the distric t

c o urt de nie d a ny re que st for postjudgme nt disc o ve ry . To the e xte nt tha t Kitc he ns se e ks

2re c o nside ration of this c ourt’ s Ja nua ry 13, 2017, order de ny ing his motion to c om pe l, we de c line to c onside r the re que st. S e e Dkt. No. 17. AFFIRM E D.

3
No. 52488.

protests 552148-G, etc. (New York).

#### Irving L. Hartman & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
July 19, 1950

No. 54572.

#### Gimbel Bros., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 149966-K.

(Initial No. 141670-K.) Plaintiff’s application for rehearing granted.
(Reap. Dec. 10938)

#### Commodore Drycopy, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 929484.

*593(Decided March 30, 1965)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Ford, Judge:

The appeal for reappraisement listed above has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> 1. That the merchandise here involved consists of photocopying machines entered for consumption after the effective date of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (T.D. 54165) ; that said merchandise is identified on the Final List (T.D. 54520) published by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to said Simplification Act; that appraisement was accordingly made under section 402a of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended.

> 2. That on or about the date of exportation of the merchandise involved herein, such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale in the country of exportation for home consumption or for exportation to the United States.

> 3. That on or about the said date of exportation such or similar imported merchandise was not freely offered for sale for domestic consumption in the United States.

> 4. That the cost of production as defined in section 402a(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended is German Deutschmarks 480 each, net, packed.

> 5. That this appeal may be submitted on this stipulation, the same being limited to the merchandise and the issues described hereinabove and abandoned in all other respects.

Accepting this stipulation as a statement of facts, I find and bold that the involved merchandise was entered on or after February 27, 1958; that the involved merchandise is included on the final list of articles published in T.D. 54521, effective February 27, 1958; that no foreign, export, or United States value, as defined in section 402a (c), (d), or (e), respectively,, of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, T.D. 54165, and T.D. 54521, exists; that the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved is cost of production, as said value is defined in section 402a (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, *sufra,*and I find and hold that such statutory value is German deutsch marks 480 for each machine, net, packed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
EXHIBIT 13.1



Certification of Chief Executive 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 this Amendment to the Annual Report for Fiscal 2009 Ended August 31, 2009 of Golden Goliath Resources Ltd., a company organized under the British Columbia Corporations Act(the Company) on Form 20-F as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, J. Paul Sorbara, President and Director of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (S) 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 result of operations of the Company.



/s/ J. Paul Sorbara

J. Paul Sorbara, President/Director





Date: February 22, 2010
# C_2018005EN.01001601.xml

| 8.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 5/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 5/16

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 October 2017 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Hitachi Rail Italy Investments Srl (C-655/16), Finmeccanica SpA (C-656/16) v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)

(Joined Cases C-655/16 and C-656/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Company law - Directive 2004/25/EC - Takeover bids - Second subparagraph of Article 5(4) - Possibility of changing the price of the offer in specific circumstances and in line with clearly determined criteria - National legislation providing an option for the supervisory authority to increase a takeover bid in the event of collusion between the offeror and the seller))

(2018/C 005/21)

Language of the cases: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Hitachi Rail Italy Investments Srl (C-655/16), Finmeccanica SpA (C-656/16)

Applicants:

Defendant: Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)

Defendant:

Interveners: Amber Capital Italia Sgr SpA, Amber Capital Uk Llp, Bluebell Partners Limited, Elliot International Lp, The Liverpool Limited Partnership, Elliot Associates L.P.

Interveners:

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

The second subparagraph of Article 5(4) of Directive 2004/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on takeover bids must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows a national supervisory authority to adjust upwards the price of a takeover bid in the event of ‘collusion’, without setting out the specific conduct that characterises that notion, on condition that the interpretation of that notion can be deduced in a sufficiently clear, precise and foreseeable manner from that legislation, using methods of interpretation recognised by national law.

---

(1)  OJ C 121, 18.04.2017.

1

---