alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STANLEY SLOAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner,

Social Security Administration

Defendant.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

 Civil Action No. 09-482 (CKK)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

(November 30, 2009)

Plaintiff, Stanley Sloan, filed the above-captioned matter on March 12, 2009, seeking

judicial review of a final decision by the Defendant, Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of the

Social Security Administration, denying Plaintiff’s claim for Disability Insurance Benefits and

Supplemental Security Income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §

401 et seq. Thereafter, on October 30, 2009, Plaintiff moved the Court for a judgment of reversal

against the Defendant or, in the alternative, for remand to the Social Security Administration for

a new administrative hearing. See Pl.’s Mot. for J. of Reversal, Docket No. [14]. On November

27, 2009, Defendant responded by filing a consent motion requesting that the Court enter

judgment reversing the Defendant’s final decision and remanding the case for further

administrative proceedings, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). See Def.’s Motion for Entry of

Judgment with Remand Pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), Docket No. [15]. 

Defendant represents that Plaintiff’s counsel has consented to the Defendant’s motion for

remand. Id. at 2. 
-2-

Upon consideration of the Defendant’s motion, the positions of the parties as stated

therein, the relevant case law and statutory provisions, and the record of this case as a whole, the

Court shall GRANT Defendant’s [15] Motion for Entry of Judgment with Remand Pursuant to

Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Accordingly, the Defendant’s final decision is reversed,

and this case is remanded to the Defendant for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of

42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Finally, given the Court’s decision above granting Defendant’s consent

motion to remand, the Court shall DENY as MOOT Plaintiff’s [14] Motion for Judgment of

Reversal. An appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. 

Date: November 30, 2009

/s/ 

COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY

United States District Judge
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           4,597
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,112
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,031
<INVENTORY>                                     40,471
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                79,569
<PP&E>                                          43,831
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,503
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 127,929
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           39,325
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      3,990
<COMMON>                                            19
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   127,929
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                23,934
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,339
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 769
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,181
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,209
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,972
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,972
<EPS-BASIC>                                       11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .10


</TABLE>
PLAINTIFF

VS.

DEFENDANT

CIVIL ACTION NO.

DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL

Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 55-2 Filed 04/02/2004 Page 1 of 1
No. 63031.

#### Independent Shoe Machinery Assoc. *v.*United States,

protest 58/5604 (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of a machine and parts similar in all material respects to the machinery involved in Abstract 61541, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit 10.21
​
	
	​
	

		​
	
		​
	


​

​
February 22, 2021
​
Via Email (PDF)
​
Ms. Michele Satrowsky
Vice President – Corporate Treasurer
ATN International, Inc.
500 Cummings Center, Suite 2450
Beverly, MA 01915
​
Re:  Limited Waiver of Net Leverage Ratio Covenant
​
Dear Ms. Satrowsky:
​
Rural Telephone Finance Cooperative ("RTFC") has received from ATN VI Holdings, LLC (the "Borrower") a request to waive compliance with the Borrower's Net Leverage financial ratio requirements that is contained in one or more loan agreements between RTFC and the Borrower.
​
RTFC hereby waives the Borrower's compliance with the above-referenced financial ratio, subject to the following conditions:
​
(a)   This is a limited waiver with respect to the financial ratio specified herein as calculated for the Borrower's fiscal year ended December 31, 2020.
​
(b)   This limited waiver shall not be construed as a waiver of any other term, condition or provision of any loan agreement or other credit agreement with RTFC.
​
(c)   This limited waiver shall not be construed as a waiver of any term, condition or provision of any loan agreement or other credit agreement with RTFC with respect to meeting future financial ratio requirements.
​
(d)   Except as specifically waived by RTFC herein, each and every term, condition and provision contained in any loan agreement or other credit agreement with RTFC shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.
​
If the foregoing accurately describes our mutual understanding of the effect of this limited waiver and the conditions under which it is granted, please so indicate by signing this correspondence where indicated and returning the original to RTFC.
​
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 703-467-1624.
​



Ms. Michele Satrowsky
ATN International, Inc.
February 22, 2021
Page 2
​

Sincerely,
​
Andrew Coleman
Vice President, Portfolio Management
​
Acknowledged and Agreed:
​
ATN VI Holdings, LLC
​
​
	​


	​


	​



	By:
	/s/ Michele Satrowsky
	​

	Name:
	 Michele Satrowsky
	​

	Title:
	Vice President, Assistant Treasurer
	​

	Date:
	February 25, 2021
	​



​
No. 51931.

#### Butler Bros. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 971768-G, etc. (Baltimore, etc.).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
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 the Quarterly Report of IQ Biometrix, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael
Walsh, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 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/ Michael Walsh
-----------------------------
Michael Walsh
Chief Financial Officer

March 12, 2004
No. 60003.

#### F. C. Mackay *v.*United States,

protests 171358-K, etc. (Pembina).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of beef or veal similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Swift & Company et al.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 212, C. D. 1655), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
# C_2018013EN.01001701.xml

| 15.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 13/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 13/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2017 — Toontrack Music v EUIPO (EZMIX)

(Case T-771/16) (1)

1

((European Union trade mark - Application for EU word mark EZMIX - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Equal treatment and principle of sound administration))

(2018/C 013/28)

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Toontrack Music AB (Umeå, Sweden) (represented by: L.-E. Ström, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Söder and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 July 2016 (Case R 2436/2015-5) concerning an application for registration of word mark EZMIX 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 Toontrack Music AB to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Toontrack Music AB to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.

1

---
**Exhibit 23.1**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRMWe consent to the incorporation by referencein the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-113954) pertaining tothe 2004 Equity Incentive Plan, 2004 Non-Employee Directors’Stock Option Plan, 2004 Employee Stock Purchase Plan and 2002 EquityIncentive Plan of Anadys Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.333-120647) pertaining to the 2004 Equity Incentive Plan, 2004 Non-Employee Directors’ Stock OptionPlan and 2004 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of Anadys Pharmaceuticals, Inc., in the RegistrationStatement (Form S-8 No. 333-129716) pertaining to the 2004 Equity Incentive Plan and 2004Non-Employee Directors’ Stock Option Plan of Anadys Pharmaceuticals, Inc., in the RegistrationStatement (Form S-3/A No. 333-124231) of Anadys Pharmaceuticals, Inc. for the registration of itscommon stock of Anadys Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and in the related Prospectus of our reports datedMarch 1, 2006, with respect to: (1) the consolidated financial statements of AnadysPharmaceuticals, Inc., and (2) Anadys Pharmaceuticals, Inc. management’s assessment of theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting of Anadys Pharmaceuticals, Inc., included in this Annual Report(Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2005.                                   /s/ Ernst & Young LLPSan Diego, California
Before the Second Division,

April 17, 1968

No. P68/209.

protests 65/25221, etc. (Los Angeles).

#### The H. J. Ashe Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

*1035Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of batteries, classified as entireties with flashlights, similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Torch Mfg. Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(57 Cust. Ct. 521, C.D. 2863), wherein the court held that the flashlights and batteries were separate entities rather than an entirety and were separately dutiable, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ANNA MAE JOHNSON, :

Plaintiff, : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

:

UNUM LIFE INSURANCE :

COMPANY OF AMERICA, et al., : No. 02-4368

Defendants. :

ORDER

AND NOW, this day of October, 2002, following a Rule 16 conference on October

30, 2002 with counsel for the parties, and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 and Local

Rule of Civil Procedure 16.1(b), it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment shall be filed by December 2, 2002. 

2. Plaintiff’s response shall be filed by January 6, 2003. 

BY THE COURT:

 

Berle M. Schiller, J.

Case 2:02-cv-04368-BMS Document 12 Filed 10/30/2002 Page 1 of 1
# C_2017195EN.01002802.xml

| 19.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 195/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 195/28

---

Order of the General Court of 17 March 2017 — Düll v EUIPO — Cognitect (DaToMo)

(Case T-381/16) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Cancellation proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for revocation - No need to adjudicate))

(2017/C 195/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Klaus Düll (Südergellersen, Germany) (represented by: S. Wolff-Marting, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Cognitect, Inc. (Durham, North Carolina, United States)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 April 2016 (Joined Cases R 1383/2015-2 and R 1481/2015-2), concerning cancellation proceedings between Cognitect, Inc. and Klaus Düll.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1) | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1)

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2) | Klaus Düll and Cognitect, Inc. shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2)

Klaus Düll and Cognitect, Inc. shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 364, 3.10.2016.

1

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

TOLEDO MACK SALES & :

SERVICE, INC., : CIVIL ACTION

:

Plaintiff, : NO. 02-4373

:

v. :

:

MACK TRUCKS, INC., :

:

Defendant. :

______________________________________________________________________________

MACK TRUCKS, INC., :

:

Counterclaim Plaintiff, :

:

v. :

:

TOLEDO MACK SALES & :

SERVICE, INC., :

:

Counterclaim Defendant. :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 12 day of September, 2006, upon consideration of Plaintiff th

Toledo Mack Sales & Service, Inc.’s Motion in Limine to preclude Mack Trucks, Inc. from

introducing testimony at trial by surprise witnesses (Docket No. 88), and all responses filed

thereto, and after oral argument having been held, it is hereby ORDERED that said Motion is

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Ronald L. Buckwalter, S. J. 

RONALD L. BUCKWALTER, S.J.

Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 113 Filed 09/13/2006 Page 1 of 1
# C_2017437EN.01002901.xml

| 18.12.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 437/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 437/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2017 — Mundipharma v EUIPO — Multipharma (MULTIPHARMA)

(Case T-144/16) (1)

1

((European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark MULTIPHARMA - Prior EU word mark MUNDIPHARMA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC No 207/2009))

(2017/C 437/34)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Mundipharma AG (Basel, Switzerland) (represented by: F. Nielsen, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Multipharma SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: P. Goldenbaum and I. Rohr, lawyers)

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 First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 January 2016 (Case R 2950/2014-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Mundipharma and Multipharma.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 22 January 2016 (Case R 2950/2014-1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 22 January 2016 (Case R 2950/2014-1);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mundipharma AG, including the costs necessarily incurred by Mundipharma for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mundipharma AG, including the costs necessarily incurred by Mundipharma for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO;

| 3. | Orders Multipharma SA to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Multipharma SA to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 191, 30.5.2016.

1

---
FMCF Version 2.0 Release Notes

November 16, 2022

The FM QSMO updated the Financial Management Capability Framework (FMCF) to align 

with recently approved changes to the Federal Financial Management Standards that are part 

of the Federal Integrated Business Framework (FIBF), and reflect feedback from the Travel 

Line of Business and updates from other stakeholders. FMCF components not impacted by 

changes are still included in the update and have been refreshed for version 2.0. 

A summary of the changes is included below and detailed information relevant to each 

component is available within each document. 

FMCF Components

• 1-4. Federal Financial Management (FFM) Standards

o Replaced previously posted pre-final copies with links to final versions.

• 5. Core FS Pre-Built Business Reports:

o Updated to align with changes to FFM Standards.

• 6. Core FS Pre-Built Business Information Exchanges (BIEs):

o Removed the PACER system as a BIE requirement.

o Updated individual specification worksheets to align with changes to FFM 

Standards and include changes from the Travel Line of Business.

• 8. FM Solution/Service Evaluation Criteria:

o Updated evaluation level/timeframe for indicators in all criteria categories to 

clarify which criteria or indicators may be evaluated by Federal agency 

customers at the order level and the FM QSMO at the periodic review level.

o Updated evaluation level/timeframe for indicators in the Technology Design and 

Technology Operation criteria categories to reflect removal of FedRAMP 

designation as a pre-requisite for entry to the FM QSMO Marketplace and 

further clarify that cybersecurity capabilities may be evaluated by Federal 

agency customers at the order level.
# C_2016364EN.01005801.xml

| 3.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 364/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 364/58

---

Action brought on 28 July 2016 — ZZ v Parliament

(Case F-38/16)

(2016/C 364/76)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the staff report for the year 2014, as finalised by the decision of 20 October 2015 and of the decision awarding merit points for the year 2014 and the decision not to promote in respect of 2015.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the contested decisions and, in so far as necessary, the decision rejecting the claim; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested decisions and, in so far as necessary, the decision rejecting the claim;

| — | Order the Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Parliament to pay the costs.

---
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 32 (B)

      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 the Quarterly Report of Northland Cable Television, Inc. and
Subsidiary (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Form
10-Q"), I, Gary Jones, President of the Company, 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 fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13 (a) or (15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
                  U.S.C. 78m or 78(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: 8-16-04

/s/ GARY S. JONES
    --------------------------------
    Gary S. Jones
    President
    (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)




A signed original of this written statement will be retained by Northland Cable
Television, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ROBBINS MOTOR TRANSPORT : CIVIL ACTION

:

vs. :

: NO. 02-2745

TRANSPORT S.R.S. et al.

O R D E R

AND NOW, TO WIT: This 25th day of November, 2002,

it having been reported that the issues between the parties in the above action has 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.

MICHAEL E. KUNZ, Clerk of Court

BY: 

Katherine Gallagher

 Deputy Clerk

Civ 2 (8/2000)

41(b).frm

Case 2:02-cv-02745-HB Document 19 Filed 11/25/2002 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : 

: CRIMINAL ACTION

VS. :

: NO: 05-190-03

ANGEL SANCHEZ :

ORDER

AND NOW, on this 5

th day of September, 2018, after being 

advised that the Defendant is no longer incarcerated, it is 

hereby ORDERED that Defendant Angel Sanchez’s motion for 

reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 USC § 3582(c)(2) and 

Amendment 782 (ECF #184) is DISMISSED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Eduardo C. Robreno _ 

EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J.

9/5/18 mailed by Chambers:

Pro Se A. Sanchez