alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC
MANSFIELD HELIFLIGHT, INC.



### v. CITY OF BURLINGTON, VERMONT Complainant,

Resnondent .FAA Docket No. 16-14-06

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based onthe abovereferenced complaint, filed in accordance withFAA Rules of Practicefor Federally-Assisted AirportEnforcementProceedings, 14 CFRpart 16. Pursuant to 14 CFRpart 16, subpart B, the date by which the Director's Determinationwill be issued in this matter is hereby extendedto October 14, 2016. An extension oftime is necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete determination inthis case.

Kevin . Willis Acting irector, Airport Compliance and Management Analysis DateCERTIFICATE O:F SERVICE**·~** I HEREBY CERTIFY that on July

# _11_, 2016, I caused to be placed in the United States mail (first class mail, postage paid) atrue copy ofthe foregoing document addressed to: FORRESPONDENT Pablo 0. Nuesch Anjali G. Patel Spiegel and McDiarmid, LLP 1875 Eye Street, N.W. Suite 700 Washington, DC 20006 FOR COMPLAINANT Benjamin H. Klein Gross & Klein LLP Pier 9, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 Copy to: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket, AGC-600 FAA Airport Compliance and Field Operations, AC0-100

laudia Roberts Office ofAirport Compliance and Management Analysis
No. 53472.

protests 143869-K, etc. (New York).

#### H. Reeve Angel & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

The protests were dismissed.
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11
 
                      ANNUITY AND LIFE RE (HOLDINGS), LTD.
 
            STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE
                                   UNAUDITED
         (EXPRESSED IN UNITED STATES DOLLARS EXCEPT FOR SHARE AMOUNTS)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                            THREE MONTHS ENDED            NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                            SEPTEMBER 30, 1998            SEPTEMBER 30, 1998
                                        --------------------------    --------------------------
                                           BASIC         DILUTED         BASIC         DILUTED
                                        -----------    -----------    -----------    -----------
<S>                                     <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>
Net Income:...........................  $ 6,660,116    $ 6,660,166    $10,235,177    $10,235,177
                                        -----------    -----------    -----------    -----------
Net Income available to common
  shareholders........................  $ 6,660,166    $ 6,660,166    $10,235,177    $10,235,177
                                        -----------    -----------    -----------    -----------
Number of shares:
  Weighted average shares
     outstanding......................   25,499,999     26,629,834     23,270,491     24,574,727
                                        ===========    ===========    ===========    ===========
Earnings per share:...................  $      0.26    $      0.25    $      0.44    $      0.42
</TABLE>
 
---------------
Note: Earnings per share for the nine months ended September 30, 1998 is
      calculated using earnings and the number of shares outstanding since April
      17, 1998, the effective date of the Company's initial public offering.
 
                                       14
EXHIBIT 99.1

                           MARINE PRODUCTS CORPORATION
                            2170 Piedmont Road, N.E.
                             Atlanta, Georgia 30324




                                 March 27, 2002

VIA EDGAR
---------

U. S. Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC   20549
Attention:  Filing Desk

         Re: Compliance with Temporary Note 3T to Article 3 of Regulation S-X

Dear Sir or Madam:

     Arthur Andersen ("Andersen") has represented to Marine Products Corporation
("Marine Products") that the audit completed as of December 31, 2001 and for the
year then ended was subject to Andersen's  quality  control  system for the U.S.
accounting  and  auditing  practice  to provide  reasonable  assurance  that the
engagement was conducted in compliance with professional  standards,  that there
was  appropriate  continuity  of  Andersen  personnel  working on the audits and
availability  of  Andersen's  national  office  consultation.   Availability  of
personnel at foreign affiliates of Andersen was not relevant to the audit.


                                    Sincerely,



                                    /s/   Ben Palmer
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Ben Palmer
                                    Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
                                    and Treasurer





1456711v1
Exhibit 99.2

Statement of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code

 

Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, I, James N. Ryan, the Chief Executive Officer of PDC 2000-D Limited Partnership, hereby certify that: 

- I have reviewed the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company (the "Report") to which this statement is an Exhibit;
- the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
- the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

_____/s/ James N. Ryan______________

Name: James N. Ryan

Title: Chief Executive Officer

Date: __March 25., 2003________
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
Exhibit 27:                 Financial Data Schedule

THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
CONSOLIDATED  FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN IT ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.


</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                                    <C>  
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                          3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                      dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                           mar-31-1999
<CASH>                                                 3,296,459
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          5,580,345
<ALLOWANCES>                                           161,985
<INVENTORY>                                            7,127,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       16,145,503
<PP&E>                                                 5,012,148
<DEPRECIATION>                                         2,734,288
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         2,803,322
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  9,029,773
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                               5,156,197
<OTHER-SE>                                             3,306,670
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           19,851,546
<SALES>                                                5,047,457
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       5,047,457
<CGS>                                                  2,924,443
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          1,661,647 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     27,587
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        433,780
<INCOME-TAX>                                           108,011
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    325,768
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                           325,768
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          0.12  
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          0.08  
        

</TABLE>
May 19 , 2016



### JUDGMENT


## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF DIANE MA RIE APFFEL AND

RALPH ALBERT APFFEL, JR.

NO. 14

- 15

- 00076

- CV

________________________________ This cause, an appeal from the Agreed Final Decree of Divorce signed December 22, 2014, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find no error in the judgment. We order the judgment of the court below AFFIRMED

. We order appellant, Ralph Albert Apffel, Jr., to pay all co sts incurred in this appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Thomas M. Belk, Jr., certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Belk, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial 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 misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in ExchangeAct Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  b. Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or causedsuch internal control over financial reporting to be designed under oursupervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability offinancial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for externalpurposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;  c. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  d. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent functions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.Date: December 13, 2007/s/ Thomas M. Belk
# C_2018032EN.01002501.xml

| 29.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 December 2017 — Tulliallan Burlington v EUIPO — Burlington Fashion (BURLINGTON)

(Case T-123/16) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark BURLINGTON - Earlier national word marks BURLINGTON and BURLINGTON ARCADE - Earlier EU and national figurative marks BURLINGTON ARCADE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Use in the course of trade of a sign of more than mere local significance - Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade marks - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 032/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Tulliallan Burlington Ltd (St Helier, Jersey) (represented by: A. Norris, Barrister)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Fischer, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Burlington Fashion GmbH (Schmallenberg, Germany) (represented by: A. Parr, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 January 2016 (Case R 1635/2013-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Tulliallan Burlington and Burlington Fashion.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Tulliallan Burlington Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Tulliallan Burlington Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 175, 17.5.2016.

1

---
# C_2016165EN.01000701.xml

| 10.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 165/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 165/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Lyon (France) lodged on 19 February 2016 — Jean-Philippe Lahorgue v Ordre des avocats du barreau de Lyon, Conseil national des barreaux ‘CNB’, Conseil des barreaux européens ‘CCBE’, Ordre des avocats du barreau de Luxembourg

(Case C-99/16)

(2016/C 165/08)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal de grande instance de Lyon

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jean-Philippe Lahorgue

Applicant:

Defendants: Ordre des avocats du barreau de Lyon, Conseil national des barreaux ‘CNB’, Conseil des barreaux européens ‘CCBE’, Ordre des avocats du barreau de Luxembourg

Defendants:

Question referred

Question referred

Is the refusal to issue a secure router for accessing the Private Virtual Network for Lawyers (RPVA) to a lawyer duly registered at the Bar of a Member State in which he wishes to practise his profession as a free provider of services contrary to Article 4 of Directive 77/249/EC, (1) on the basis that it constitutes a discriminatory measure which could impede the practice of his profession as a free provider of services?

1

---

(1)  Council Directive 77/249/EEC of 22 March 1977 to facilitate the effective exercise by lawyers of freedom to provide services (OJ 1977 L 78, p. 17).

1

---
# C_2017144EN.01006204.xml

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/62

---

Order of the General Court of 7 March 2017 — Cleversafe v EUIPO (Beyond Scale)

(Case T-252/16) (1)

1

(2017/C 144/94)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 287, 8.8.2016.

1

---
# C_2019148EN.01006401.xml

| 29.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/64

---

Order of the General Court of 1 March 2019 — Baradel and Others v EIF

(Case T-507/16) (1)

(2019/C 148/64)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Ninth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 226, 3.8.2013 (case initially registered at the European Union Civil Service Tribunal as Case F-51/13 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).

---
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-31315 Conference Calendar

JAMES RICHARD WEEMS, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus BURL CAIN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 97-CV-996

- - - - - - - - - - August 18, 1998 Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * James Richard Weems (#120628) pleaded guilty to the charge of first-degree murder and is serving a life sentence without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence at the Louisiana State Penitentiary. Weems has appealed the dismissal of his federal application for a writ of habeas corpus. Weems contends that his right to due process was violated because the indictment was not signed by the foreman of the grand jury, contrary to state law. The sufficiency of a state indictment is not a matter for federal habeas relief unless itNo. 97-31315 -2- can be shown that the indictment is so defective that it deprived the state court of jurisdiction. Branch v. Estelle , 631 F.2d 1229, 1233 (5th Cir. 1980). If the state courts have held that an indictment is sufficient under state law, a federal court need not address that issue. McKay v. Collins , 12 F.3d 66, 68 (5th Cir. 1994). The state habeas court found that the grand jury foreman had, in fact, signed the original indictment. This finding was affirmed by the court of appeal. The rejection of the defective-indictment issue by the state courts was not based upon an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state-court proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). Weems contends that his attorneys erred in failing to challenge the indictment. Weems cannot show that he was prejudiced by his attorneys’ failure to challenge the indictment.
See Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). Weems also contends that his attorneys rendered ineffective assistance in advising him to plead guilty. Because a certificate of appealability was not granted as to this issue, it is not considered. See Lackey v. Johnson , 116 F.3d 149, 151-52 (5th Cir. 1997).
AFFIRMED.
No. 50914.

#### Protests 99912-K, etc., of Amazon Timbers, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of “hit-and-miss” planed lumber similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Thompson Mahogany Co.*v. *United States*(13 Cust. Ct. 204, C. D. 894). In accordance therewith, the claim for entry free of the regular duties imposed under the Tariff Act of 1930, by virtue of paragraph 1803 thereof, was sustained.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

               Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Auditors


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 33-72888) pertaining to the Odyssey HealthCare, Inc. Stock Option Plan,
the Odyssey HealthCare, Inc. 2002 Equity-Based Compensation Plan and the Odyssey
HealthCare, Inc. Employee Stock Purchase Plan of our report dated January 31,
2003, except for Note 7 as to which the date is February 24, 2003, with respect
to the consolidated financial statements of Odyssey HealthCare, Inc. and
subsidiaries included in  the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 2002.


Dallas, Texas
March 25, 2003
No. 53974.

#### Consolidated Sewing Machine & Supply Co. and Lord & Taylor *v*United States,

protests 149840-K and 110397-K (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

The protests were dismissed.
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

 

IN RE: IMMODIUM ADVANCED

ANTITRUST LITIGATION

CIVIL ACTION Nos. 

02-4105

02-4149

02-4180

02-4197

02-4362

02-4386

02-4387

02-4476

02-4530

02-6797

02-6993

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 1st day of December, 2003, pursuant to this court’s Order dated

September 10, 2003 in In re: Immodium Advanced Antitrust Litigation (Civ. A. No. 02-4093,

Doc. No. 24), it is hereby ORDERED that the cases listed above are dismissed.

BY THE COURT:

 

MARVIN KATZ, S.J.

Case 2:02-cv-04387-MK Document 11 Filed 12/01/2003 Page 1 of 1
# C_2017277EN.01004001.xml

| 21.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 277/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 277/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 July 2017 — Gamet v EUIPO — ‘Metal-Bud II’ Robert Gubała (Door handle)

(Case T-306/16) (1)

1

((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a door handle - Earlier design - Ground for invalidity - No individual character - Degree of freedom of the designer - No different overall impression - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Evidence submitted in support of the opposition after the expiry of the prescribed period - Production of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Discretion of the Board of Appeal - Article 63 of Regulation No 6/2002))

(2017/C 277/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Gamet S.A. (Toruń, Poland) (represented by: A. Rolbiecka, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Firma produkcyjno-handlowa ‘Metal-Bud II’ Robert Gubała (Świątniki Górne, Poland) (represented by: M. Mikosza, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 March 2016 (Case R 2040/2014-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Firma produkcyjno-handlowa ‘Metal-Bud II’ Robert Gubała and Gamet.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Gamet S.A. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Gamet S.A. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 296, 16.8.2016.

1

---