alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

**In connection with the AnnualReport of Cap Rock Energy Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the yearended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David W. Pruitt, Co-Chairmanof the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:**

 

(1)                                  The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

 

(2)                                  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
| Dated: March 25, 2005 |                                                                  |
|----------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                       |                                                                  |
|                       |                                                                  |
|                       | By: /s/ David W. Pruitt                                               |   |
|                       | David W. Pruitt  Co-Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer |
|                       |

 

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to Cap Rock Energy Corporation and will be retained by Cap Rock EnergyCorporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DOLORES (DEE) BARRETT, : CIVIL ACTION NO.: 02-cv-4421

:

:

Plaintiff, :

:

v. :

:

THE GREATER HATBORO CHAMBER :

OF COMMERCE, INC., JOHN J. (BUD) :

AIKEN, and MICKEY GLANTZ, :

:

Defendants. :

O R D E R

AND NOW, to wit this _______ day of __________, 2005, upon consideration of

the Defendants’ Motion to Preclude An Award of Punitive Damages and any response

thereto, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that the said Motion is GRANTED and

the Plaintiff is precluded from recovering punitive damages in this action.

BY THE COURT:

______________________________

J.

Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 46-2 Filed 09/09/2005 Page 1 of 1
1. To wit, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a due process

violation or ALJ error, and the overpayment issue is not ripe for

adjudication. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JOHN F. PEOPLES : CIVIL ACTION

:

 v. :

:

JO ANNE B. BARNHART : NO. 04-4284 

ORDER

AND NOW, this 3rd day of November, 2005, upon

consideration of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (docket

entry # 9), defendant's motion for summary judgment (docket entry

# 13), the September 19, 2005 Report and Recommendation of the

Honorable David P. Strawbridge (docket entry 17), and plaintiff's

failure to object within ten days of service of the Report and

Recommendation, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and the

September 19, 2005 letter sent to his counsel by the Clerk of

Court, thereby preventing us from executing our congressionally

entrusted task, i.e., "make a de novo determination of those

portions of the report or specified proposed findings or

recommendations to which objection is made," id., and the Court,

in any event, agreeing with Judge Strawbridge's cogent analysis,1

it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and

ADOPTED;

2. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is DENIED;

and

Case 2:04-cv-04284-SD Document 18 Filed 11/03/05 Page 1 of 2
-2-

3. Defendant's motion for summary judgment is

GRANTED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Stewart Dalzell, J. 

.

Case 2:04-cv-04284-SD Document 18 Filed 11/03/05 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Each of the undersigned officers of Oglebay Norton Company (the Company), does hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his or her
knowledge:



Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form
10-K/A of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2004 (as amended, the Annual 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 or 78o(d)); and



The information contained in the Annual 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 expressed in the Annual Report.



DATE: April 6, 2005



|    |  |                                                           
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/    MICHAEL D. LUNDIN                                  
|    |  | Michael D. Lundin President and Chief Executive Officer   
|    | 
|By: |  | /s/    JULIE A. BOLAND                                    
|    |  | Julie A. Boland Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



The foregoing certification is being
furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Annual Report or as a separate disclosure document.
No. 57953.

protest 215706-K (New York).

#### S. P. Skinner Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of china or porcelain figures similar in all material respects to those passed upon in *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.*v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 15, C. A. D. 458), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
# C_2017283EN.01004501.xml

| 28.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 283/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 283/45

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 July 2017 — Dessi v EIB

(Case T-510/16) (1)

1

((Civil Service - EIB staff - Appraisal - Promotion - Appraisal and promotion year 2012 - Decision of the Appeal Committee - Scope of review - Staff representatives - Discrimination))

(2017/C 283/68)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Nathalie Dessi (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented initially by: A. Senes and L. Payot, and subsequently by: L. Levi, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Investment Bank (EIB) (represented initially by: C. Gómez de la Cruz and E. Raimond, subsequently by: E. Raimond and G. Faedo, and finally by: G. Faedo and K. Carr, acting as Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decision of the EIB Appeal Committee of 23 October 2013, by which it rejected the applicant’s request for a review of her staff report for 2012 in that that report did not recommend to the President of the EIB that she be promoted from function group F to function group E.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the EIB Appeal Committee of 23 October 2013, by which it rejected Ms Nathalie Dessi’s request for a review of her staff report for 2012 in that that report did not recommend to the President of the EIB that she be promoted from function group F to function group E; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the EIB Appeal Committee of 23 October 2013, by which it rejected Ms Nathalie Dessi’s request for a review of her staff report for 2012 in that that report did not recommend to the President of the EIB that she be promoted from function group F to function group E;

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

2.

Orders the EIB to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 85, 22.3.2014 (case initially registered at the European Union Civil Service Tribunal as Case F-8/14 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          18,687,000
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       37,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                       (10,000)
<INVENTORY>                                         30,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                18,808,000
<PP&E>                                             403,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                    (219,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  18,998,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              914,000
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             7,000
<OTHER-SE>                                      18,070,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    18,998,000
<SALES>                                            390,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   422,000
<CGS>                                              292,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      292,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   909,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          0
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (775,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (775,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         (.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (.19)
        


</TABLE>
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 13 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prevent high net worth 

individuals from receiving tax windfalls for entering government service. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 3, 2017 

Mr. WHITEHOUSE (for himself, Ms. BALDWIN, Ms. WARREN, and Mrs. FEINSTEIN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prevent 

high net worth individuals from receiving tax windfalls 

for entering government service. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘No Windfalls for Gov5 ernment Service Act’’. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 13 IS

1 SEC. 2. LIFETIME LIMITATION ON NONRECOGNITION OF 

2 PROPERTY SOLD TO COMPLY WITH CON3 FLICT-OF-INTEREST REQUIREMENTS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1043 of the Internal Rev5 enue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the 

6 following new subsection: 

7 ‘‘(d) LIMITATION.—The amount of gain to which 

8 subsection (a) applies with respect to any taxpayer for a 

9 taxable year shall not exceed $1,000,000 reduced by the 

10 amount of gain to which subsection (a) applied with re11 spect to such taxpayer for all preceding taxable years.’’. 

12 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

13 this section shall apply to sales in taxable years beginning 

14 after December 31, 2016. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
(Reap. Dec. 10969)

#### D & M Lumber Products Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 945332.

(Decided May 4, 1965)

*Sharp & Bogan*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Rao, Judge:

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

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the undersigned, subject to the approval of the Court:

> 1. That the subject merchandise consists of hardboard exported from Sweden as to which the Secretary of the Treasury issued a finding of dumping, published in 89 TD 197, TD 53567, made pursuant to the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C., 160, et seq.).

> 2. That pursuant to Section 168 of said Antidumping Act, the appraiser .reported the purchase price (Sec, 162) and the foreign market value (Sec, 164) *639as to tlie merchandise listed on Schedule A attached hereto and made a part hereof.

> 3. That pursuant to Sections 500 and 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, the appraiser appraised all of the merchandise in the appeals for appraisement enumerated on Schedule A for regular duty purposes.

> 4. That the plaintiff duly filed appeals for reappraisement as to the values referred to in the above paragraphs Nos. 2 and 3.

> 5. That at the times relevant herein the purchase price and the foreign market value under the said Antidumping Act are as specified in the aforesaid Schedule A attached hereto.

> 6. That as to all other items of merchandise not identified on Schedule A, the appraiser’s reports of purchase price and of foreign market value are correct.

> 7. That the appraiser’s findings of value under the provisions of Section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, are correct.

> 8. That said appeals are submitted for decision upon this stipulation and said Schedule A.

Upon the agreed facts, I find foreign market value, as defined in section 164 of the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C. § 1964), for the merchandise described in schedule A, annexed to this decision and made a part hereof, and the purchase price thereof, within section 162 of said act (19 U.S.C. § 162), to be as indicated in said schedule. As to all other items of merchandise not identified in schedule A, I find the foreign market values and purchase prices to be as reported by the appraiser. In all other respects, the values of all merchandise are as returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
# C_2017382EN.01004501.xml

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/45

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2017 — Ruhland v EUIPO — 8 seasons design (Lamp in the form of a star)

(Case T-779/16) (1)

1

((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a lamp in the form of a star - Earlier Community design - Ground of invalidity - Individual character - Different overall impression - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002))

(2017/C 382/55)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Lothar Rühland (Wendeburg, Germany) (represented by: H.-P. Schrammek, C. Drzymalla, S. Risthaus and J. Engberding, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented initially by: S. Hanne, and subsequently by: M. Fischer, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: 8 seasons design GmbH (Eschweiler, Germany) (represented by: A. Haberl, 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 8 July 2016 (Case R 878/2015-3) concerning invalidity proceedings between 8 seasons design and Mr Rühland.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Lothar Rühland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Lothar Rühland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 118 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 118

 To make exclusive the authority of the Federal Government to regulate 
 the labeling of products made in the United States and introduced in 
        interstate or foreign commerce, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 12, 2017

  Mr. Lee (for himself, Mrs. Fischer, Mr. King, Mrs. Capito, and Ms. 
   Collins) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To make exclusive the authority of the Federal Government to regulate 
 the labeling of products made in the United States and introduced in 
        interstate or foreign commerce, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Reinforcing American-Made Products 
Act of 2017''.

SEC. 2. EXCLUSIVITY OF FEDERAL AUTHORITY TO REGULATE LABELING OF 
              PRODUCTS MADE IN THE UNITED STATES AND INTRODUCED IN 
              INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE.

    Section 320933 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act 
of 1994 (15 U.S.C. 45a) is amended--
            (1) in the first sentence, by striking ``To the extent'' 
        and inserting the following:
    ``(a) In General.--To the extent'';
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(b) Effect on State Law.--The provisions of this section shall 
supersede any provisions of the law of any State relating to the extent 
to which a product is introduced, delivered for introduction, sold, 
advertised, or offered for sale in interstate or foreign commerce with 
a `Made in the U.S.A.' or `Made in America' label, or the equivalent 
thereof, in order to represent that such product was in whole or 
substantial part of domestic origin.''; and
            (3) in the third sentence of subsection (a), as designated 
        by paragraph (1), by striking ``Nothing in this section'' and 
        inserting ``Except as provided in subsection (b), nothing in 
        this section''.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2019072EN.01002101.xml

| 25.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 December 2018 — Deichmann v EUIPO — Vans (V)

(Case T-848/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark V - Earlier international figurative marks V - Proof of the existence, validity and scope of the protection of an earlier trade mark - Rule 19(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 7(2)(a)(ii) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625)))

(2019/C 72/26)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Deichmann SE (Essen, Germany) (represented by: C. Onken, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Vans, Inc. (Cypress, California, United States) (represented by: M. Hirsch, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 September 2016 (Case R 2129/2015-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Deichmann and Vans.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 20 September 2016 (Case R 2129/2015-4); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 20 September 2016 (Case R 2129/2015-4);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs as well as those incurred by Deichmann SE; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs as well as those incurred by Deichmann SE;

| 3. | Orders Vans, Inc. to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Vans, Inc. to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 38, 6.2.2017.

---
P. 1



# RCRA Box 321
Prepped by RyanDugan



### Document

Number: 

# 206 ) OGRC-S0007. A
Docket Number: 

# F-93-OGRC-FFFF F

Printed 5/8/2007 3:36:31 PM

Sheet 206 of 259P. 2 

## 0&3C-560O^.f t 

# 'THtdcue&terttt

P. O . Drawe r139 5 Snyd«r . Texa s 7954 9 Phot-M i (915 ) 573^M S
Septembe r 19 , 199 0

Charle s Stenhol m Congressma n 122 6 Longwort h(Offic e Buildin g Washington , D.C . 2051 5

A chang e in federa l regulatio nwil l pu t u s ou t o f business . W e nee dyou r help . Federa l Registe r Marc h19 , 1990 , Pag e 11 , 798-87 7 change s reclamatio nplan t wast e fro m non-hazardou s t o hazardous . Th e additiona l cos t o f wast e disposa l woul dmak e reclaimin g oi l fro m tan k bottom s andspill s cost-prohibitive . W e receiv e onl y

virgi ncrud e tank botto m sedimen t an

dmateria l fro m oi l spills , a s wel l a s virgi ncrud e oi l skimme dfro m sal t wate r disposa l wells . W e us e hea t an dbrin e wate r t o separat e oi l fro m dir t an dwater ; th e oi l 1 s the nsol dt o virgi ncrud e oi l buyers . W e d o no t chang e th e molecula r structur e o f thi s oi l a t all . Th e materia l remainin g afte r th e oi l i s sklume dof f an dsol d1 s 90 S brin e wate r an

da 10 Xmixtur e o f dirt , iro nsulfid e an doil . Thi s i s hazardou s wast e unde r new regulation s i f i t come s fro m a reclam atio nplant . Th e same exac t materia l comin g fro m a produce r 1 s no t hazardou s waste . A t a tim e whe noi l i s i n shor t suppl y andw e ar e reclaimin g oi l tha t woul dnormall y

b e lost , regulation s ar e bein g passe dtha t wil l pu t u s an dman y

othe r smal l reclaimer s ou t o f business . A nofficia l wit hth e Texa s Railroa dCon-mission' s Stat e Offic e agree d the m I s n o logica l reaso nfo r this . I t 1 $ no t right . Ca nyo uhel pu s wit hthi s o r advis e u s a s t o wha t w e ca ndo ? Thi s goe s Int o effec t Septembe r 25 , 1990 , s o you r promp t attention wil l b e appreciated . Sincerely ,

Bo bKinrnel ' Midwester nReclamation , Inc .

^