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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JERMONT COX, :

 :

Petitioner, : CIVIL ACTION NO. 00-5188

 :

v. :

 :

MARTIN HORN, CONNOR BLAINE, :

THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE :

COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA, and THE :

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE :

OF PENNSYLVANIA, :

 :

Respondents. :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 28th day of August, 2018, after considering the motions for relief from 

final judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) filed by the petitioner (Doc. 

Nos. 56, 82), the supplemental memorandum in support of the motions filed by the petitioner 

(Doc. No. 95), the response in opposition filed by the respondents (Doc. No. 105), and the reply 

in support of the motions filed by the petitioner (Doc. No. 110); accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED as follows:

1. The clerk of court is DIRECTED to remove this action from civil suspense and 

return it to the court’s active docket;

2. The petitioner’s motions for relief (Doc. Nos. 56, 82) are DENIED;

3. The petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right and is therefore not entitled to a certificate of appealability, 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2);1 and

 1 See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (explaining requirements for obtaining a certificate of 

appealability under section 2253(c)(2)).
2

4. The clerk of court shall mark this case as CLOSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Edward G. Smith 

EDWARD G. SMITH, J.
No. 52518.

protests 797378-G, etc. (Boston and Honolulu).

#### James E. Markham, Alien Property Custodian *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cole, J.

The protests were dismissed.
_______________________________________ __ Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

September 28, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh 128454 Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. YOUNG & YOUNG, L.L.C., Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices

v SC: 128454 COA: 251359 Kalamazoo CC: 02-000381-CH NICHOLAS DENNANY, Defendant-Appellant,

and

TERESA L. DENNANY, Non-Participating Defendant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 3, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presen ted should be reviewed by this Court.

d0919 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.

September 28, 2005

Clerk
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

   PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

The undersigned executive officer of First BancTrust Corporation (the
"Registrant") hereby certifies that the Registrant's Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained therein
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Registrant.


                                        /s/ Terry J. Howard
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Name: Terry J. Howard
                                        Title: Chief Executive Officer and
                                               President

Date: March 27, 2006
**

**Page 2 of 2

# image1.jpeg
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.                  

###### International Trade Commission

          - [Investigation No. 731-TA-472 (Fifth Review)]

                    On the basis of the record [1]                                          developed in the subject five-year review, the United States International Trade Commission (“Commission”) determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of                           ( print page 80336)                        1930 (“the Act”), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on silicon metal from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.                

## Background

The Commission instituted this review on May 1, 2023 (88 FR 26595) and determined on August 4, 2023 that it would conduct an expedited review (88 FR 61613, September 7, 2023).

                    The Commission made this determination pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its determination in this review on November 14, 2023. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5473 (November 2023), entitled                     *Silicon Metal from China: Investigation No. 731-TA-472 (Fifth Review).*

By order of the Commission.

Issued: November 14, 2023.

Lisa Barton,

Secretary to the Commission.

# Footnotes

1.                             The record is defined in § 207.2(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).                    
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 2023-25469 Filed 11-16-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL 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 Quarterly Report of AXT, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Donald L. Tatzin, as
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

         (1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) 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.

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to AXT, Inc. and will be retained by AXT,Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

May 9, 2003                                 /s/ Donald L. Tatzin
                                            ------------------------------------
                                                  Donald L. Tatzin
                                                  Chief Financial Officer
# C_2017129EN.01000201.xml

| 24.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/2

---

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1 February 2017 — Ante Šumelj and Others v European Commission

(Case C-239/16 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Action for damages - Act of accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union - Commitments relating to a strategy for judicial reform - Creation followed by the abolition of the position of public bailiff - Damage suffered by persons appointed as public bailiffs - Monitoring of the Republic of Croatia’s commitments by the European Commission - Appeal dismissed - Appeal manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly unfounded in part))

(2017/C 129/02)

Language of the case: Croatian

Parties

Parties

Appellants: Ante Šumelj, Dubravka Bašljan, Đurđica Crnčević, Miroslav Lovreković, Drago Burazer, Nikolina Nežić, Blaženka Bošnjak, Bosiljka Grbašić, Tea Tončić, Milica Bjelić, Marijana Kruhoberec, Davor Škugor, Ivan Gerometa, Kristina Samardžić, Sandra Cindrić, Sunčica Gložinić, Tomislav Polić, Vlatka Pižeta (represented by: M. Krmek, odvjetnik)

Appellants:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: S. Ječmenica and G. Wils, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Ante Šumelj, Ms Dubravka Bašljan, Ms Đurđica Crnčević, Mr Miroslav Lovreković, Mr Drago Burazer, Ms Nikolina Nežić, Ms Blaženka Bošnjak, Ms Bosiljka Grbašić, Ms Tea Tončić, Ms Milica Bjelić, Ms Marijana Kruhoberec, Mr Davor Škugor, Mr Ivan Gerometa, Ms Kristina Samardžić, Ms Sandra Cindrić, Ms Sunčica Gložinić, Mr Tomislav Polić and Ms Vlatka Pižeta are ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Ante Šumelj, Ms Dubravka Bašljan, Ms Đurđica Crnčević, Mr Miroslav Lovreković, Mr Drago Burazer, Ms Nikolina Nežić, Ms Blaženka Bošnjak, Ms Bosiljka Grbašić, Ms Tea Tončić, Ms Milica Bjelić, Ms Marijana Kruhoberec, Mr Davor Škugor, Mr Ivan Gerometa, Ms Kristina Samardžić, Ms Sandra Cindrić, Ms Sunčica Gložinić, Mr Tomislav Polić and Ms Vlatka Pižeta are ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 251, 11.7.2016.

1

---
**Exhibit      32.1**

 

|   | 1) | The                Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company’s financial position and results of                operations. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                  By:   |                  /s/ Gilad Gat    |   |
|---------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|                                  | Gilad                Gat               |   |
|                                  | Chief                Executive Officer |   |
|                                  | Chief                Financial Officer |   |
|                                  | November                14, 2008       |   |

----
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/LPS4792 lost

The target resource for this PURL can no longer be traced. The following is a list of the targets this PURL was previously assigned to.

Powered by the Federal Depository Library Program.                A service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office.
# C_2017424EN.01003501.xml

| 11.12.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 424/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.12.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 424/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2017 — Erdinger Weißbräu Werner Brombach v EUIPO (Shape of a large glass)

(Case T-857/16) (1)

1

((European Union trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Three-dimensional mark - Shape of a large glass - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive nature - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 2017/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2017/C 424/50)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Erdinger Weißbräu Werner Brombach GmbH & Co. KG (Erding, Germany) (represented by: A. Hayn, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 September 2016 (Case R 659/2016-2) concerning the international registration designating the European Union of the three-dimensional mark constituted by the shape of a large glass.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Erdinger Weißbräu Werner Brombach GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Erdinger Weißbräu Werner Brombach GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 38, 6.2.2017.

1

---
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

STATE OF FLORIDA
, Appellant,

v.

GREGORY LACERRA
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 21

- 399

[ February 17, 2022 ]

Appeal from the C ounty Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Jill K. Levy , Judge; L.T. Case No s

. , 20

- 006001 MM10A (originally filed as 19

- 007000MM10A) and 20

- 00 0032AC10A

.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Heidi L. Bettendorf, Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Eric T. Schwartz reich of Schwartzreich & Associates, Fort Lauderdale, and Sheila Zolnoor of the Law Office of Sheila Zolnoor, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

C ONNER

, C.J., F ORST and K UNTZ , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

 

:

LUIGI CIOCCA, :

:

Plaintiff, : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

: NO. 04-5605

BJ’S WHOLESALE CLUB, INC., :

:

Defendant. :

 :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 14th day of November, 2011, upon consideration of the

Motion for Summary Judgment filed by BJ’s Wholesale Club, Inc. (Doc. No. 15), and the

Response and Reply thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED due to the

existence of genuine issues of material facts.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ Joint Pretrial Order shall be filed

within fourteen (14) days after the date of this Order.

BY THE COURT:

 /s/ Robert F. Kelly 

Robert F. Kelly, Sr. J.
Exhibit 32.2





Statement of Chief Financial Officer Furnished


Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





The undersigned, Gary F. Hoskins, is the Chief Financial Officer of Citizens South Banking Corporation (the “Company”).





This statement is being furnished in connection with the filing by the Company of the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2012 (the “Report”).





By execution of this statement, I certify that to the best of my knowledge:





A)
the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and





B)
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods covered by the Report.







August 14, 2012


/s/ Gary F. HoskinsDated


Gary F. Hoskins

Chief Financial Officer





This statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the Report so that this statement will accompany the Report at such time as the Report is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.  It is not intended that this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Citizens South Banking Corporation and will be retained by Citizens South Banking Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2018042EN.01001902.xml

| 5.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 42/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 42/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2017 — CJ v ECDC

(Case T-602/16) (1)

1

((Civil service - Members of the contract staff - Career evaluation report - Assessment exercise 2012 - Drawing up - Application for annulment of the decision closing appraisal report))

(2018/C 042/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: CJ (represented by: V. Kolias, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), (represented by J. Mannheim and A. Daume, acting as Agents, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought under Article 270 TFEU, seeking annulment of the decision of the appeal assessor of the ECDC of 21 September 2015 finalising the applicant’s appraisal report for the year 2011 and, insofar as necessary, the decision of the ECDC of 20 April 2016 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant against that decision of the appeal assessor.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders CJ to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 296, 16.8.2016 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under case No F-32/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).

1

---
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

BUSTER L. GASKIN, JR., )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-928

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed October 11, 2019.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for 

Hillsborough County; Christopher C. 

Sabella, Judge. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LaROSE, MORRIS, and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
Case 2:02-cv-04398-BWK Document 30 Filed 07/02/2003 Page 1 of 10
Case 2:02-cv-04398-BWK Document 30 Filed 07/02/2003 Page 2 of 10
Case 2:02-cv-04398-BWK Document 30 Filed 07/02/2003 Page 3 of 10
Case 2:02-cv-04398-BWK Document 30 Filed 07/02/2003 Page 4 of 10
Case 2:02-cv-04398-BWK Document 30 Filed 07/02/2003 Page 5 of 10
Case 2:02-cv-04398-BWK Document 30 Filed 07/02/2003 Page 6 of 10
Case 2:02-cv-04398-BWK Document 30 Filed 07/02/2003 Page 7 of 10
Case 2:02-cv-04398-BWK Document 30 Filed 07/02/2003 Page 8 of 10
Case 2:02-cv-04398-BWK Document 30 Filed 07/02/2003 Page 9 of 10
Case 2:02-cv-04398-BWK Document 30 Filed 07/02/2003 Page 10 of 10
# C_2017437EN.01000701.xml

| 18.12.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 437/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 437/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) — United Kingdom) — The English Bridge Union Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

(Case C-90/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Exemption for supplies of services closely linked to sport - Concept of ‘sport’ - Activity characterised by a physical element - Duplicate bridge))

(2017/C 437/09)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: The English Bridge Union Limited

Applicant:

Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 132(1)(m) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that an activity such as duplicate bridge, which is characterised by a physical element that appears to be negligible, is not covered by the concept of ‘sport’ within the meaning of that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 145, 25.4.2016.

1

---
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 25, 2015

No. 04-15-00072-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF C.M.O.,

From the 225th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-PA-01068

Honorable Dick Alcala, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant attempts to appeal from a final order terminating her parental rights. An appeal 

from such an order is accelerated. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 263.405(a). The trial court signed 

the order of termination on January 20, 2015. Because this is an accelerated appeal, the notice of 

appeal was due on February 9, 2015. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a). A motion for extension of time 

to file the notice of appeal was due on February 17, 2015. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3. Although 

appellant filed a notice of appeal within the fifteen-day grace period allowed by Rule 26.3, she

did not file a motion for extension of time. 

A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in good 

faith, files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by Rule 26.1 but within the fifteen-day 

grace period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion for extension of time. See Verburgt v. 

Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997) (construing the predecessor to Rule 26). However, 

the appellant must offer a reasonable explanation for failing to file the notice of appeal in a 

timely manner. See id.; TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3, 10.5(b)(1)(C). 

It is therefore ORDERED that appellant file, within fifteen days from the date of this 

order, a response presenting a reasonable explanation for failing to file the notice of appeal in a 

timely manner. If appellant fails to respond within the time provided, the appeal will be 

dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). 

All other appellate deadlines are suspended until further order of this court.

_________________________________

Jason Pulliam, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 25th day of February, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court