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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DOROTHY E. MAKO, et ux : CIVIL ACTION

vs. : NO. 02-2756

ELIJAH MUTURI GLADYS, et al. :

 

O R D E R

AND NOW, TO WIT: this 24th day of October, 2002 it having been reported

that the issues between the parties in the above action have been settled and upon Order of the

Court pursuant to the provisions of Rule 41.1(b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure of this

Court , it is

ORDERED that the above action is DISMISSED with prejudice, pursuant to

agreement of counsel without costs.

ALL PENDING MOTIONS ARE DISMISSED AS MOOT.

MICHAEL E. KUNZ, Clerk of Court

BY: ___________________________ 

 Maureen Mattern 

Deputy Clerk

 

 

Civ 2 (8/2000)

41(b).frm

Case 2:02-cv-02756 Document 32 Filed 10/24/2002 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 542 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 542

Expressing support for designation of the week of October 1 through 7, 
               2017, as ``Latex Allergy Awareness Week''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 27, 2017

  Mr. Engel (for himself and Ms. Shea-Porter) submitted the following 
   resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 
                           Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Expressing support for designation of the week of October 1 through 7, 
               2017, as ``Latex Allergy Awareness Week''.

Whereas incidences of latex allergies have increased due to widespread exposure 
        to products containing latex rubber allergen;
Whereas latex allergies can be elicited by touching a product containing natural 
        rubber latex, breathing airborne latex protein particles, or digesting 
        food prepared using latex gloves;
Whereas those who suffer from latex allergies commonly suffer from cross-
        reactive food allergies or asthma;
Whereas latex allergies can be prevented by avoiding all latex-related products 
        which can be found in health care environments, restaurants, childcare 
        facilities, workplaces, schools, communities, and homes; and
Whereas the week of October 1 through 7, 2017, would be appropriate to designate 
        as ``Latex Allergy Awareness Week'': Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives supports the 
designation of ``Latex Allergy Awareness Week''.
                                 <all>
```
No. 62470.

#### Keuffel & Esser Co. *v.*United States,

protests 235996-K and 256833-K (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issues are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *John P. Herber & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 193, C. D. 1519), the protests were dismissed, and the matters were remanded to a single judge sitting in reappraisement for determination of the value of the merchandise in the manner provided by law (28 U. S. C. § 2636 (d)).
Before the First Division,

November 24, 1953

No. 57634.

#### Sprouse-Reitz Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

97574-K, etc. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of celluloid reindeer similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 56902, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1041 

To include the State of Florida in the Gulf of Mexico outer Continental 

Shelf revenue sharing program, to extend the moratorium on oil and 

gas leasing in certain areas of the Gulf of Mexico, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 4, 2017 

Mr. RUBIO introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To include the State of Florida in the Gulf of Mexico outer 

Continental Shelf revenue sharing program, to extend 

the moratorium on oil and gas leasing in certain areas 

of the Gulf of Mexico, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Florida Shores Protec5 tion and Fairness Act’’. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1041 IS

1 SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF STATE OF FLORIDA IN GULF OF 

2 MEXICO OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF REV3 ENUE SHARING PROGRAM. 

4 Section 102 of the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security 

5 Act of 2006 (43 U.S.C. 1331 note; Public Law 109–432) 

6 is amended by striking paragraph (7) and inserting the 

7 following: 

8 ‘‘(7) GULF PRODUCING STATE.—The term ‘Gulf 

9 producing State’ means each of the States of Ala10 bama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas.’’. 

11 SEC. 3. MORATORIUM ON OIL AND GAS LEASING IN CER12 TAIN AREAS OF GULF OF MEXICO. 

13 Section 104(a) of the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security 

14 Act of 2006 (43 U.S.C. 1331 note; Public Law 109–432) 

15 is amended in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by 

16 striking ‘‘June 30, 2022’’ and inserting ‘‘June 30, 2027’’. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH 

					NO. 2-03-005-CV

JESSE L. JOHNSON AND TAYLOR T. JOHNSON	APPELLANTS

	V.

RUIZ PROTECTIVE SERVICES, INC. 	APPELLEE

	----------

	FROM THE 352ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

	----------

		MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	------------

	On March 10, 2003 and March 24, 2003, we notified appellants, in accordance with rule of appellate procedure 42.3(c), that we would dismiss this appeal unless the $125 filing fee was paid.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c).  Appellants have not paid the $125 filing fee.  See Tex. R. App. P. 5, 12.1(b).

	Because appellants have failed to comply with a requirement of the rules of appellate procedure and the Texas Supreme Court's order of July 21, 1998,2 we dismiss the appeal.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c), 43.2(f).

	Appellant shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.  See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL D:	DAUPHINOT, HOLMAN, and GARDNER, JJ.			

DELIVERED: May 1, 2003
Order entered March 5, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-01086-CR

No. 05-18-01087-CR

No. 05-18-01088-CR

JUAN GUEVARA LAUREANO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 439th Judicial District Court

Rockwall County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 2-16-209, 2-16-210 & 2-16-224

ORDER

Before the Court is the State’s March 4, 2019 second motion for extension of time to file 

its brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the State’s brief filed on or before April 3, 

2019. If the State’s brief is not filed by April 3, 2019, these appeals may be submitted without 

the State’s brief.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
MOORE
& ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED


ACCOUNTANTS AND
ADVISORS


PCAOB
REGISTERED

















CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM











We
consent to the use, in the statement on Form 10KSB of Genesis Realty Group,
Inc., of our report dated April 14, 2008 on our audit of the financial
statements of Genesis Realty Group, Inc., as of December 31, 2007 and December
31, 2006, and the related statements of operations, stockholders’ deficit and
cash flows for the years then ended and from inception on November 22, 1999 to
December 31, 2007, and the reference to us under the caption
“Experts.”





























/s/ Moore & Associates,
Chartered


Moore
& Associates Chartered


Las
Vegas, Nevada


April 14,
2008
**Exhibit 12.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Helmut Perlet,certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Allianz SE; 

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 the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of thecompany as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the company andhave: 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed underour supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; 

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the company’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditors and the audit committee of the company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

(b) Any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the company’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: March 19, 2008
No. 55864.

protests 162641-K, etc. (New York).

#### Kachurin Drug Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cole, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of ammonium ichthosulfonate the same in all material respects as the commodity passed upon in *United States*v. *Kachurin Drug Company*(39 C. C. P. A. 36, C. A. D. 459), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Before the Third Division,

May 4, 1959

No. 63015.

#### Frank P. Dow Co., Inc., and Elliot Import Corpn. *v.*United States

protest 58/16197 (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5(b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
# C_2017293EN.01000601.xml

| 4.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 293/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 293/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky — Slovak Republic) — Radosław Szoja v Sociálna poisťovňa

(Case C-89/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Application of social security schemes - Migrant workers - Person pursuing an activity as an employed person and an activity as a self-employed person in two different Member States - Determination of the applicable legislation - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Article 13(3) - Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 - Article 14(5b) - Article 16 - Effects of the decisions of the Administrative Commission for the coordination of social security systems - Inadmissibility))

(2017/C 293/07)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Referring court

Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Radosław Szoja

Applicant:

Defendant: Sociálna poisťovňa

Defendant:

Intervening parties: WEBUNG, ebung s.r.o.

Intervening parties:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 465/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012, must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine the national legislation applicable under that provision to a person, such as the applicant in the main proceedings, who normally pursues an activity as an employed person and an activity as a self-employed person in different Member States, the requirements laid down in Article 14(5b) and Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation No 883/2004, as amended by Regulation No 465/2012, must be taken into account.

---

(1)  OJ C 175, 17.5.2016.

1

---
<PAGE>

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 this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Integrated
Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended December 31,
2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (i) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company at the dates and for the period indicated

      This Certificate has not been, and shall not be deemed, "filed" with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.


                                        INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, INC.

Dated: February 11, 2010                By:  /s/ Steven R. Blake
                                             ------------------------------
                                             Steven R. Blake
                                             Chief Financial Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Eastern District of Pennsylvania

U.S. Court House

Independence Mall West

601 Market Street

Philadelphia, PA 19106-1797

215/597-1178

August 5, 2003

NOTICE OF HEARING:

RE: CHESTER COUNTY HOSPITAL v. INDEPENDENCE BLUE CROSS, ET AL

 Civil Action No. 02-2746

Dear Counsel:

Please be advised that a hearing is scheduled on Non-Party

Aetna Inc.’s Appeal of the Court’s July 7, 2003 and July 16, 2003

Orders modifying the January 23, 2003 Protective Order (Doc. No.

95), and Statement of Objections and/or Notice of Appeal from the

Magistrate Judge’s Order Denying Multiplan’s Motion to Intervene

and/or Motion for Protective Order and Motion to Quash, Motion to

Interviene and/or Motion for Protective Order (Doc. No. 94). The

hearing will be held on August 7, 2003 at 10:45 a.m. in Courtroom

6A, 6th Floor, United States Courthouse, 601 Market Street,

Philadelphia, PA 19106.

Very truly yours,

Gerrie M. Keane

Deputy Clerk to Judge Padova

To: ALL COUNSEL OF RECORD

Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 110-2 Filed 08/05/2003 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 110-2 Filed 08/05/2003 Page 2 of 2
CERTIFICATIONS

I, Sidney Ackerman,  President of Rosedale  Decorative  Products,  Ltd., certify
that:

1.       I have reviewed this quarterly report an Form 10-QSB of Rosedale
         Decorative Products, Ltd.;

2.       Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

3.       Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
         information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly 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
         we 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 quarterly 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 this quarterly report (the "Evaluation
                  Date"); and

         c)       presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
                  effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based
                  on our evaluation as pf 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 function); 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

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


     Date:  December 14, 2004                        /s/ SIDNEY ACKERMAN
                                                     -------------------
                                                         Sidney Ackerman
                                                         President
(Reap. Dec. 10334)

Entry No. 790724.

#### Aut Customs Brokers, Inc., a/c Fadex Commercial Corp. *v.*United States

(Decided September 13, 1962)

*Barnes, Richardson <& Colburn*for the plaintiff.

*Joseph D. Guilfoyle,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Rao, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision, upon the following stipulation:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the court, as follows:

> 1. That the involved merchandise consists of automobiles entered subsequent to the effective date of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 and identified in the Einal List proclaimed by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to said Customs Simplification Act (T.D. 54521).

> 2. That on or about the time of exportation of the involved automobiles, 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 time 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 402(a) (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the said Customs Simplification Act of the automobiles involved herein is as follows: One-tone, DM 2904 each; Two-tone, DM 2918 each; plus, for each automobile invoiced with whitewall tires and/or sliding roof, DM 35 per set of whitewall tires and DM 187.50 for sliding roof.

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

Upon the agreed facts, I find cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402a (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise covered by said appeal for reappraisement and that such values are as follows: One-tone, DM 2,904 each; two-tone, DM 2,918 each; plus, for each automobile invoiced with whitewall tires and/or sliding roof, DM 35 per set of whitewall tires and DM 187.50 for sliding roof.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.