alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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  Annual  Report  of The Art  Boutique,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending  December 31, 2005 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report").  I,
Ronald Lui, CEO of the company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 USC Section  1350,  as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that to the
best of my knowledge and belief.

        (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/ Ronald Lui
                                         --------------------------------
                                         Ronald Lui, CEO - CFO

Dated: April 11, 2006
No. 56974.

#### Manufacturers Chemical Company *v.*United States,

protest 187746-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

From an examination of the papers in the case the court was unable to find anything to overcome the presumption of correctness of the collector’s classification. The protest was therefore overruled.
No. 48430.

#### Protests 893629-G, etc., of Darmstadt, Scott & Co. et al. (Norfolk, etc.).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Case No. 13,109.

#### SMITH v. SMITH.

[Cited in Carr v. Gale, Case No. 2,435. Nowhere reported; opinion not now accessible.)
May 8, 1959

No. 63021. Suit 4937.

#### Bercut-Vandervoort & Co., Inc. *v.*United States.

C.D. 1877 affirmed November 14,1958. C.A.D. 691.
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 49 Filed 02/17/2004 Page 1 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 49 Filed 02/17/2004 Page 2 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 49 Filed 02/17/2004 Page 3 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 49 Filed 02/17/2004 Page 4 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 49 Filed 02/17/2004 Page 5 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 49 Filed 02/17/2004 Page 6 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 49 Filed 02/17/2004 Page 7 of 7
No. 48407.

#### Protests 13075-K, etc., of E. C. Carter & Son (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

When this case was called for trial the record in Abstract 47349 was incorporated and some additional testimony was introduced, which testimony added nothing to the merits of the case. On the record it was found that two of the items, 35762 and 35853, were made on a bobbinet machine. The protest was sustained as to these two items and overruled in all other respects.
No. 55848.

protest 170125-K (New York).

#### Royce Watch Co. *v.*United States,

*310Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

It was stipulated that the items of merchandise in question consist of watch movements similar in all material respects to those which were the subject of *United States*v. *Helbros Watch Co. et al.*(38 C. C. P. A. 1, C. A. D. 430). Upon the agreed statement of facts and the cited authority, the merchandise was held properly dutiable at the base rate of $1.20 each as watch movements more than *%o*of 1 inch but not more than 1 inch wide under paragraph 367 (a) (1), as modified, *supra.*
No. 51948.

#### Pacific Liquors, Ltd. *v.*United States,

protest 119082-K (Honolulu).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Somerset*(33 C. C. P. A. 138, C. A. D. 328), and that a quantity of liquor amounting to 10 percent or more of the value of the contents of each of the barrels, casks, packages, etc., was lost in transit from the port of exportation to the port of destination due to breakage, leakage, or damage. In accordance therewith it was held that an allowance should have been made for the loss appearing upon the gauger’s return as verified by the affidavit of the importer. The protest was sustained to this extent.
175. 8th, P.O. Box 910 Miles City, MT 59301·0910

Dennis DeVany DepartmentofTransportation Office ofthe Secretary Washington, D.C.

July2, 2013 Telephone: 406-234-3462 Fax: 406-234-2903

Sent via email to: dennis.devany@dot.gov; eas@dot.gov; cc to: Mark_Hybner@baucus.senate.gov; mboettger@co.fergus.mt.us, drice@milescity-mt.org

DearMr. DeVany,

Please consider this our Petition for Reconsideration regarding Order 2013-6-13.

Whereas, Public Law 112-27, signed into law on August 5, 2011, amended the definition of an "eligible place" for the purpose of receiving Essential Air Service (EAS). Among otherthings, the amendment states that to be eligible, a community must have had an average subsidy per passenger of less than $1,000 duringthemostrecentfiscalyear.

Whereas, Public Law 112-95, signed into law on February 14, 2012, further amended the EAS statutes. Among other things, Section 424 amends 49 U.S.C. 41733 byaddingthefollowing.

"(2) PROCEDURES TO AVOID TERMINATION.--The Secretary shall establish, by order, procedures by which each community notified of an impending loss of subsidy under paragraph (1) may work directly with an air carrier to ensure that the air carrier is able to submit a proposal to the Secretary to provide essential air service to such community for an amount of compensation that would not exceed the subsidycap. "(3) ASSISTANCE PROVIDED.--The Secretary shall provide, by order, information to each communitynotified underparagraph (1) regarding-- "(A) the procedures established pursuant to paragraph (2); and "(B) the maximum amount of compensation that could be provided under this subchapter
to an air carrier serving such community that would comply with basic essential air service and the subsidycap.".



### Whereas, to the best ofourknowledge, the Secretaryhas not established procedures bywhich a community may work with an air carrierto ensure that the aircarrieris able to submita proposal to provide EAS.**Therefore~** we requestthatthe DOT set aside Order2013-6-13 and allow subsidized service to continue at all seven communities until such time that the DOT issues an order establishing the above referenced procedures. Once the order is issued we request an appropriate amount of time (60 days) to review the procedures established within the order and seek carriers to work with directly. After such time has elapsed we request that the DOT issue a new RFP for all seven Montana communities. It is our opinion that this is the most appropriatewayto move forward.

YoursTruly,

C. A. Grenz,**Mayd~**
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed July 19,

2012 .

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14
- 12
- 00551
- CV

IN RE PRESTON CROFT , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS Trial Court Cause No. 09
- DCV
- 170256 434th Distric t Court Fort Bend County, Texas



### M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

On June 15, 2012 , relator Preston Croft filed a petitio n for writ of mandamus in this c ourt. See Tex. Gov’t Code §22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator ask ed this c ourt to compel the Honorable James Shoemake, presiding judge of the 434th Judicial District Court of Fort Bend C ounty , to rule on his motion for summary judgment and grant his motion to disqualify the real party in interest’s counsel

.2

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will issue only if (1) the trial court clearly abused its discretion and (2) the party requesting mandamus relief has no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am ., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135

– 36 (Tex. 2004). Relator ha s not established that he is entitle d to the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus. See In re Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d 659, 661 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding) ; In re Am. Media Consol., 121 S.W.3d 70, 72

- 73 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2003, orig. proceeding) (citing Za lta v. Tennant , 789 S.W.2d 432, 433 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, orig. proceeding) )

. Accordingly, we deny relator ’s petition for writ of mandamus

.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Seymore and Brown.
Before the Second Division,

August 15, 1949

No. 53481.

protests 123067-K, etc. (New York).

#### S. B. Weintraub *v.*United States,

•Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of sisal handbags similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Goldberg & Seltzer, Inc.*(36 C. C. P. A. 64, C. A. D. 399), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
# C_2018042EN.01004501.xml

| 5.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 42/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 42/45

---

Order of the General Court of 5 December 2017 — FE v Commission

(Case T-616/16) (1)

1

(2018/C 042/63)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 371, 10.10.2016 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under Case No F-46/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).

1

---
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

In connection with the Report of ZymoGenetics, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-K), I,
Douglas E. Williams, Chief Executive Officer and James A. Johnson, Chief Financial Officer, of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Form 10-K 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

(2) The information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: March 5, 2009



/s/    DOUGLAS E. WILLIAMSDouglas E. WilliamsChief Executive Officer




/s/    JAMES A. JOHNSONJames A. JohnsonChief Financial Officer
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 26 Filed 02/19/2004 Page 1 of 1
# C_2017357EN.01003201.xml

| 23.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/32

---

Order of the General Court of 6 September 2017 — Clarke v EUIPO

(Case T-548/16) (1)

1

(2017/C 357/41)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 221, 6.7.2015 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under Case No F-63/15 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).

1

---
# C_2017063EN.01001801.xml

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 19 December 2016 — A/S Bevola, Jens W. Trock ApS v Skatteministeriet

(Case C-650/16)

(2017/C 063/25)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: A/S Bevola, Jens W. Trock ApS

Applicants:

Defendant: Skatteministeriet

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Does Article 49 TFEU preclude a national taxation scheme, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which it is possible to make deductions for losses in domestic branches, whilst it is not possible to make deductions for losses in branches situated in other Member States, including in conditions equivalent to those in the EU Court of Justice’s judgment in Marks & Spencer, C-446/03, (1) paragraphs 55 and 56, unless the group has elected international joint taxation on the terms as set out in the main proceedings?

Marks & Spencer

1

---

(1)  (EU:C:2005:763)

1

---
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATIONS
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 Annual Report of Ardent Mines Limited on Form 10-K for the
year ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Leonardo Riera, Principal 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, to my knowledge
that:





(1) 
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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





Date:
September 28, 2010




By:
              /s/ Leonardo RieraName:   
      Leonardo RieraTitle:     
      Principal Executive
Officer
#### WOODS v. MURRAY.

Civ. A. No. 7360.

United States District Coiirt, W. D. Pennsylvania.

Oct. 14, 1948.

Cyril F.- Pessolano, Chief Rent Litigation Atty., of Upper Darby, Pa., and David Levin, Resident Atty., of Pittsburgh, Pa., •for plaintiff.

*5John E. Winner and Floyd V. Winner, both of Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendant.

*6McVICAR, District Judge.

The question involved is whether the defendant is in a position to invoke the applicable provision of the Housing and Rent Act of 1947, as amended, 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix § 1881 et seq.

Section 209(a) of said Act provides:

“No action or proceeding to recover possession of any controlled housing accommodations with respect to which a maximum rent is in effect under this title shall be maintainable by any landlord against any tenant in any court, notwithstanding the fact that the tenant has no lease or that his lease has expired, so long as the tenant continues to pay the rent to which the landlord is entitled unless * * *

“(2) The landlord seeks in good faith to recover possession of such housing accommodations for his immediate and personal use and occupancy as housing accommodations * *

The housing accommodation in this case was owned by five persons. The defendant has only a one-fifth interest therein. He alone sought to recover possession of the housing accommodation. It therefore follows that the owners of the housing accommodation involved did not seek in good faith to recover possession thereof for their immediate and personal use and occupancy as a housing accommodation, nor is there any evidence that defendant was authorized in his efforts to recover possession, to act *7for the other four owners. He, therefore, is not in a position to invoke the benefit of the aforesaid Act.

Let an order for judgment be prepared and submitted in accordance with the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and this opinion.
Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 184 Filed 12/23/2003 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 184 Filed 12/23/2003 Page 2 of 2
Document

Exhibit 10.1

AMENDMENT TO 
THE ALLSTATE CORPORATION 
CHANGE IN CONTROL SEVERANCE PLAN




The Allstate Corporation Change in Control Severance Plan, effective as of December 30, 2011 (the “Plan”), is hereby amended effective March 1, 2021, as set forth below.


1.         Section 3.17 of the Plan is hereby amended as follows:


3.17     Reserved.


2.         Section 6.1(a)(iii) of the Plan is hereby amended as follows:


(iii) an amount equal to two (2.0) times the sum of the Participant’s Base Salary and Target Annual Bonus, each determined as of the Termination Date; provided, however, that any reduction in the Participant’s Base Salary or Target Annual Bonus that would qualify as Good Reason shall be disregarded for this purpose; and


Except as set forth herein, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.
No. 57196.

protests 143060-K, etc. (New York).

#### Walter Gumpert et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the kidskin plates are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Kung*
      *394
      *Chen Fur Corpn.*v. *United States*(29 Cust. Ct. 266, C. D. 1480), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was sustained.

Foed, J., concurred.

Mollison, J., dissented for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in C. D. 1480, *supra. . .*
# C_2017151EN.01003601.xml

| 15.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 151/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 151/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 3 April 2017 — Cop v EUIPO — Conexa (AMPHIBIAN)

(Case T-215/16) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark AMPHIBIAN - Absolute grounds for refusal - Distinctive character - Lack of descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 151/46)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Cop Vertriebs-GmbH (Aresing, Germany) (represented by: H. Hofmann, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Conexa LLC (Dover, Delaware, United States) (represented by: H. Twelmeier, 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 7 March 2016 (Case R 1984/2015-4) relating to invalidity proceedings between Cop and Conexa.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

dismisses the action;

| 2. | orders Cop Vertriebs-GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders Cop Vertriebs-GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 251, 11.7.2016.

1

---
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-83,395-01

EX PARTE GILBERT DELACRUZ, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 13-CR-3455-H IN THE 347TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM NUECES COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant entered an open plea of guilty to

assault with family violence, enhanced, and was sentenced to twenty-five years’ imprisonment. 

Applicant contends that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance because he failed to

timely file a notice of appeal. Trial counsel has submitted an affidavit responding to Applicant’s

allegations. Counsel states that there was a breakdown in communication, and that as a result of this

breakdown, he did not go over the meaning and effect of the judgment, Applicant’s right to appeal,
2

and the necessity of giving notice of appeal with Applicant.

The trial court has determined that counsel failed to timely file a notice of appeal. We find

that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time appeal of the judgment of

conviction in Cause No. 13-CR-3455-H from the 347th District Court of Nueces County. Applicant

is ordered returned to that time at which he may give a written notice of appeal so that he may then,

with the aid of counsel, obtain a meaningful appeal. Within ten days of the issuance of this opinion,

the trial court shall determine whether Applicant is indigent. If Applicant is indigent and wishes to

be represented by counsel, the trial court shall immediately appoint an attorney to represent

Applicant on direct appeal. All time limits shall be calculated as if the sentence had been imposed

on the date on which the mandate of this Court issues. We hold that, should Applicant desire to

prosecute an appeal, he must take affirmative steps to file a written notice of appeal in the trial court

within 30 days after the mandate of this Court issues.

Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Correctional

Institutions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division. 

Delivered: July 29, 2015

Do not publish
May 1, 1962

No. 66742. — Appeal 5075.

#### United States *v.*Greek Orthodox Church of Evangelismos.

O.D. 2241 affirmed February 13,1962. O.A.D. 792.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       3-MOS
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           1,193
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,778
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,086
<INVENTORY>                                     24,580
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                43,302
<PP&E>                                          71,885
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,403
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 228,957
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,921
<BONDS>                                        128,187
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      40,428
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   228,957
<SALES>                                         24,598
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                24,598
<CGS>                                           18,110
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   22,188<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   888<F2>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    60
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,643
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (2,121)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (665)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1,456)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,456)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1> cogs, sellimg, G&A
<F2> amortization and other
</FN>
        

</TABLE>