alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Before the First Division,

March 19, 1947

No. 51617.

#### Protests 124536-K, etc., of W. J. Bush & Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of citronella oil the same in all material respects as that the subject of *United States**172v. *Procter & Gamble Mfg. Co.*(34 C. C. P. A. 71, C. A. D. 345). In accordance therewith the claim for free entry under paragraph 1731 was sustained.
EXHIBIT 99.1
                                                                    ------------

                    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 the Quarterly Report of Extended Systems Incorporated on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Steven D. Simpson, Chief Executive
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 and 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 Extended Systems Incorporated.


/s/ Steven D. Simpson
--------------------------------
Steven D. Simpson
Chief Executive Officer
February 14, 2003


<PAGE>

                    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 Extended Systems Incorporated on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Karla K. Rosa, 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 and 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 Extended Systems Incorporated.



/s/ Karla K. Rosa
-------------------------------
Karla K. Rosa
Chief Financial Officer
February 14, 2003
# C_2017095EN.01000401.xml

| 27.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/4

---

Action brought on 27 July 2016 — Mauro Infante v Italian Republic

(Case C-469/16)

(2017/C 095/08)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Mauro Infante (represented by: M. Iervolino, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Italian Republic

Defendant:

By order of 13 December 2016, the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) held that the Court of Justice of the European Union clearly lacks jurisdiction with regard to the application and that Mr Mauro is to bear his own costs.

---
Case 2:05-cv-00667-HB Document 33 Filed 02/08/08 Page 1 of 8
Case 2:05-cv-00667-HB Document 33 Filed 02/08/08 Page 2 of 8
Case 2:05-cv-00667-HB Document 33 Filed 02/08/08 Page 3 of 8
Case 2:05-cv-00667-HB Document 33 Filed 02/08/08 Page 4 of 8
Case 2:05-cv-00667-HB Document 33 Filed 02/08/08 Page 5 of 8
Case 2:05-cv-00667-HB Document 33 Filed 02/08/08 Page 6 of 8
Case 2:05-cv-00667-HB Document 33 Filed 02/08/08 Page 7 of 8
Case 2:05-cv-00667-HB Document 33 Filed 02/08/08 Page 8 of 8
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7944

LESTER O’NEIL WOODRUFF,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director Virginia Department of 

Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, Senior

District Judge. (6:12-cv-00072-NKM)

Submitted: April 14, 2014 Decided: April 16, 2014

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lester O’Neil Woodruff, Appellant Pro Se. Rosemary Virginia 

Bourne, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Lester O’Neil Woodruff seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) 

petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction 

because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. 

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of 

the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends 

the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the 

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely 

filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional 

requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket 

on October 23, 2013. The notice of appeal was filed on November 

25, 2013.* Because Woodruff failed to file a timely notice of 

appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal 

period, we deny Woodruff’s motion for a certificate of 

appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

 * For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date 

appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could 

have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to 

the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 

(1988).
3

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED
|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                             |                                                 |                           |
|----------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|
| February                19, 2008 |                                                      | /s/                Edna Carter |
|                             | Edna                Carter, Chief Accounting Officer |
|                             | (Principal                Accounting Officer)        |

*This      certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not deemed filed by the Company*
*and      is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under      the      Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made      before or after the date of the Report), irrespective of any general      incorporation language contained in such filing*
*.*

----
# C_2018104EN.01003201.xml

| 19.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 104/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2018 — Ranocchia v ERCEA

(Case T-208/16) (1)

1

((Research and technological development - Calls for proposals and related activities under the ERC Work Programme 2015 - Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) - Horizon 2020 - Decision of the ERCEA declaring ineligible the proposal submitted by the applicant - Project concerning the identification of mathematical algorithms facilitating the reading and analysis of certain ancient manuscripts - Misuse of powers - Error of fact - Error of law - Manifest error of assessment))

(2018/C 104/41)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Graziano Ranocchia (Rome, Italy) (represented by: C. Intino, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA) (represented initially by: E. Chacon Mohedano, R. Maggio Panizza and L. Moreau, and subsequently by E. Chacon Mohedano, R. Maggio Panizza and F. Sgritta, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of (i) ERCEA Decision Ares(2016) 1020667 of 26 February 2016, dismissing the applicant’s application for a review of the decision refusing to subsidise research proposal No 682937, entitled ‘PHercSchools2 — The Hellenistic Philosophical Schools in the Herculaneum Papyri’, (ii) ERCEA Decision Ares(2015) 5922529 of 17 December 2015, refusing to subsidise that research proposal, and (iii) any prior, subsequent or connected measure linked to those decisions, in particular the list of projects approved for the ‘ERC Consolidator Grant’ support programme made public by the ERCEA’s press release of 12 February 2016.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Graziano Ranocchia to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Graziano Ranocchia to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 243, 4.7.2016.

1

---
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of TenFold
Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert P. Hughes, 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, to the best of my knowledge:

(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/ Robert P. Hughes                      
|Robert P. Hughes                          
|Chief Financial Officer and Chief of Staff
|August 1, 2006
August 30, 1948

No. 52531.

protests 132763-K, 135721-K, and 137276-K.

#### Henry Pollack, Inc. *v.*United States,

(Initial No. 134288-K.) Plaintiff’s application for rehearing granted.
### JUDGMENT 

## Court of Appeals First District of Texas

NO. 01

- 14

- 00536

- CR
DENNIS ROY REDDING , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee Appeal from the 212th District Court of Galveston County. (Tr. Ct. No. 12

- CR

- 2363 ).
This case is an appeal from the final judgment signed by the trial court on May 15, 2014. After submitting the case on the appellate record and the arguments properly raised by the parties, the Court holds that the trial court’s judgment contains no

rever sible error. Accordingly, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below for observance.
Judgment rendered October 1 5 , 2015

. Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Bland and Huddle. Opini on delivered by Justice Huddle.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

   Schedule of Year-To-Date Principal and Interest Distributions
                           to
                  Certificateholders
                                                                              Ending
Class                   Interest             Principal      Losses           Balance
<S>                     <C>                  <C>            <C>              <C>
AF1                      681,481.82       1,774,095.23         0.00        107,700,904.77
AF2                      177,426.10       1,125,488.47         0.00         36,634,511.53
AF3                      104,650.04               0.00         0.00         17,109,000.00
AF4                      128,533.06               0.00         0.00         19,749,000.00
AIO                      159,386.67               0.00         0.00                  0.00
AV1                      195,831.15         532,527.12         0.00         40,537,472.88
B                        113,402.95               0.00         0.00         15,791,000.00
BIO                      495,872.50               0.00         0.00                  0.00
M1                       137,142.29               0.00         0.00         20,469,000.00
M2                       121,060.49               0.00         0.00         17,545,000.00
R1                             0.00               0.00         0.00                  0.00
R2                             0.00               0.00         0.00                  0.00
R3                             0.00               0.00         0.00                  0.00
XP                        17,652.83               0.00         0.00                100.00
</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The undersigned, Brian J. Martin,
President (chief executive officer) of the managing owner, Prudential Securities Futures Management Inc. (the Managing Owner), of World Monitor TrustSeries A (Series A), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | Series As Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 25, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Series A.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                         |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | 
|/s/ Brian J. Martin                                                      |  | 
|Brian J. Martin President (chief executive officer)of the Managing Owner |  | 
|                                                                         | 
|August 9, 2004                                                           |  |
# C_2017283EN.01004701.xml

| 28.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 283/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 283/47

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 July 2017 — Parliament v Meyrl

(Case T-699/16) (1)

1

((Appeal - Civil Service - Members of the temporary staff - Contested decision annulled at first instance - Dismissal - Right to be heard - Principle of sound administration - Duty of care - Manifest error of assessment - Abuse of power))

(2017/C 283/72)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: European Parliament (represented by: V. Montebello-Demogeot and M. Dean, acting as Agents)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Sonja Meyrl (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 19 July 2016, Meyrl v Parliament (F-147/15, EU:F:2016:157), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Meyrl

Parliament

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 19 July 2016, Meyrl v Parliament (F-147/15); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 19 July 2016, Meyrl v Parliament (F-147/15);

| 2. | Dismisses the action brought by Ms Sonja Meyrl before the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-147/15; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action brought by Ms Sonja Meyrl before the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-147/15;

| 3. | Orders each party to bear its own costs relating to the appeal proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders each party to bear its own costs relating to the appeal proceedings;

| 4. | Orders Ms Meyrl to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance, including those of the European Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Ms Meyrl to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance, including those of the European Parliament.

---

(1)  OJ C 454, 5.12.2016.

1

---
No. 64022.

protests 58/10088, 58/10095, and 58/10110 (Seattle).

#### Close and Stewart *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of prepared or preserved pork similar in all material respects to that the subject of *C. J. Tower & Sons*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 36, C.D. 2100), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
##### 



Exhibit 11 AmerUs Group Co.
Statement Re: Computation of Earnings Per Share For The Three Months Ended June 30,2004
    
    2003Net
    
    Number of
    
    Per Share
    
    Net
    
    Number of
    
    Per ShareIncome
    
    Shares
    
    Amount
    
    Income
    
    Shares
    
    Amount(in thousands, except per share amounts)Basic EPSNet income from continuing operations
    
    $
    48,776
    
    
    
    39,327
    
    
    $
    1.24
    
    
    $
    43,176
    
    
    
    39,162
    
    
    $
    1.10Effect of dilutive securitiesOptions
    
    
    
    
    
    
    656
    
    
    
    (0.02
    )
    
    
    
    
    
    
    242
    
    
    
    PRIDES
    
    
    
    
    
    
    777
    
    
    
    (0.02
    )
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Diluted EPS
    
    $
    48,776
    
    
    
    40,760
    
    
    $
    1.20
    
    
    $
    43,176
    
    
    
    39,404
    
    
    $
    1.10
 For The Six Months Ended June 30,2004
    
    2003Net
    
    Number of
    
    Per Share
    
    Net
    
    Number of
    
    Per ShareIncome
    
    Shares
    
    Amount
    
    Income
    
    Shares
    
    Amount(in thousands, except per share amounts)Basic EPSNet income from continuing operations
    
    $
    78,516
    
    
    
    39,342
    
    
    $
    2.00
    
    
    $
    78,479
    
    
    
    39,112
    
    
    $
    2.01Effect of dilutive securitiesOptions
    
    
    
    
    
    
    626
    
    
    
    (0.03
    )
    
    
    
    
    
    
    243
    
    
    
    (0.02
    )PRIDES
    
    
    
    
    
    
    651
    
    
    
    (0.04
    )
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Diluted EPS
    
    $
    78,516
    
    
    
    40,619
    
    
    $
    1.93
    
    
    $
    78,479
    
    
    
    39,355
    
    
    $
    1.99
 44
# C_2017213EN.01003001.xml

| 3.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/30

---

Order of the General Court of 3 May 2017 — De Nicola v EIB

(Case T-73/16 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Civil service - EIB staff - Psychological harassment - Non-contractual liability - Errors of law - Appeal manifestly unfounded))

(2017/C 213/40)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Carlo De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: G. Ferabecoli, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank (EIB) (represented initially by G. Nuvoli and T. Gilliams, and subsequently by G. Nuvoli and G. Faedo, acting as Agents, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (sitting as a single judge) of 18 December 2015, De Nicola v EIB (F-37/12, EU:F:2015:162), seeking to have that judgment set aside in part.

De Nicola

EIB

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Carlo De Nicola shall bear his own costs and shall pay those incurred by the European Investment Bank (EIB) in the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Carlo De Nicola shall bear his own costs and shall pay those incurred by the European Investment Bank (EIB) in the present proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 118, 4.4.2016.

1

---
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Tyrone Brown Ramirez , Appellant

No. 06

- 23

- 00226

- CR v.

The State of Texas , Appellee Appeal from the 8th District Court of Hopkins County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 2229155 ). Panel consis ts of Chief Justice Stevens and Justices van Cleef and Rambin. Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice Rambin

.

As stated in the Court’s opi nion of this date, we find there was partial error in the judgment of the court below. Therefore, we modify th e trial court’s judgment of conviction and
the clerk’s bill of cost by dele ting the $15.00 time payment fee

. As modified, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. We note that the appellant, Tyrone Br own Ramirez , has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED JUNE 12, 2024 BY ORDER OF THE COURT SCOTT E. STEVENS CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey , Clerk