alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CYNTHIA ACOSTA, ET AL. * CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-074

VERSUS * MDL NO. 02-20143

AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS * HONORABLE HARVEY BARTLE, III

CORPORATION, ET AL.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE COUNSEL

NOWNOW INNOW INTONOW INTO NOW INTO COURNOW INTO COURT, through undersigned cou

CorporationCorporation (hereinafter sometimes referred to as SmithKline ), upon representing Corporation (herein

SmithKlineSmithKline desires to substitute Charles M. Steen with the law firm of Steen, McShane &

Williamson,Williamson, L.LWilliamson, L.L.C., in pWilliamson, L.L.C., in place of Stephanie G. McShan

Beecham Corporation. 

WHERWHEREFORE,WHEREFORE, SWHEREFORE, SmithKline Beecham Corporation respectfully 

anan Order substituting Charles M. Steen with the law firman Order substituting Charles M. Steen with the law firm 

in place of Stephanie G. McShane as counsel of record for SmithKline Beecham Corporation.

Case 2:02-cv-20143-HB Document 2 Filed 07/29/2002 Page 1 of 3
Respectfully submitted, 

STEEN, McSHANE & WILLIAMSON, L.L.C.

__________________________________________

CHARLES M. STEEN, T.A. (#12420)

MARIE RUDD POSEY (#22534)

1250 Energy Centre

1100 Poydras Street

New Orleans, Louisiana 70163-1250

Telephone: (504) 599-8440

COUNSEL FOR SMITHKLINE

BEECHAM CORPORATION

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

II do herebyI do hereby certify that I have on this ________I do hereby certify that I have on this ________ 

ofof the foregoing pleading, by mailing the same by United States Mail,of the foregoing pleading, by mailing the s

classclass postage prepaid, or by hand delivery on counsel for allclass postage prepaid, or by hand delivery on coun

all parties.

____________________________________

Case 2:02-cv-20143-HB Document 2 Filed 07/29/2002 Page 2 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CYNTHIA ACOSTA, ET AL. * CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-074

VERSUS * MDL NO. 02-20143

AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS * HONORABLE HARVEY BARTLE, III

CORPORATION, ET AL.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

ORDER

CONSIDERING THE FOREGOING Motion to Substitute Counsel; 

ITIT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Charles M. Steen with the law firm of Steen,IT IS HEREBY ORDERE

WillWilliamsoWilliamson,Williamson, L.L.C., be, and is hereby, enrolled as counsel of record for SmithKlin

CorporCorporaCorporation,Corporation, and Stephanie G. McShane is deleted as counsel of record for SmithKl

Corporation,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania this ____ day of ______________, 2002.

____________________________________

J U D G E

Case 2:02-cv-20143-HB Document 2 Filed 07/29/2002 Page 3 of 3
# Sheet1

&"Arial,Bold"Part 1SUPPLEMENT	&"Arial,Bold"&KFF0000DRAFT	&"Arial,Bold"Fiscal Year 2017 ReportingSection VII

&"Arial,Bold"Bulletin No. 2017-16	&"Arial,Bold"&KFF0000DRAFT&K000000 VII VDR - &P	&"Arial,Bold"IRC Handout 12/5/17
P.1 

OAR Box 1834 

Prepped by Keeia Richards 

Document Number: 

28) IV-E-01 

Docket Number: 

A-90-07 

Printed 11/10/2008 2:14:34 PM Sheet 28 of 61 
P.2_ 

ft -90-01 

wW-€-Ol 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN 48105 

JUN b 5 1992 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Site Visit to General 

Science Laboratory 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

Motors ledical 

FROM: 

TO: 

THRU: 

Kent M. Helmer, Toxicologist 

Special Regulatory Projects Branch 

/e^/-7y4/L^-~ 

Docket No. A-90-07 

Judith Gray, Project Manager Hu4*^W*ff 

Special Regulatory Projects Branch / " U 

Glenn W. Passavant, Branch Chief ^Jd^^C/Jy^iA^^1^^ 

Special Regulatory Projects Branch 

On Tuesday, May 26, 1992, several EPA staff members (Kent M. 

Helmer, Judith Gray, Ines D. Figueroa, Pamela J. Brodowicz, and 

James R. Cook) visited the Biomedical Science Laboratory at General 

Motors Research Laboratories (GMRL) in Warren, Michigan. We were 

hosted by Dr. Jeffrey Santrock, Staff Research Scientist in the 

Biomedical Science Department of GMRL. The purpose of our visit 

was to view first hand the exhaust emission inhalation test 

facility on site and to gain practical insights into testing for 

health effects in rodents from inhalation exposures to vehicle 

exhaust emissions. 

Dr. Christopher C. Green, Head of the Biomedical Science 

Department, began the presentation with a brief overview of the 

lab's purpose and the general direction of research at the 

facility. He made the point that GMRL is quite diversified in its 

research objectives and spoke of the possibility for co-operative 

research projects on concerns common to both EPA and GMRL. 

Following Dr. Green's presentation, Kent Helmer outlined for the 

group the substance of the proposed Fuels and Fuel Additives 

Registration rulemaking and, in particular, the proposed vehicle 

emission inhalation exposure health testing guidelines. 

Next, Dr. Richard M. Schreck spoke on his lab's completed work 

in testing diesel exhaust emissions in Long-Evans rats. He 

presented slides detailing the layout and operation of their 

emission exposure test chambers and responded to our questions on 

the day-to-day operation of the units under test conditions. Mr. 

James B. D'Arcy followed with a short discussion of some of the 

issues involved in testing the health effects of methanol aerosol 
.______________________________________________________________________________________-______________ i 

V *? ». !» 

exposure. Having completed the presentations, Dr. Santrock and Mr. 

D'Arcy acted as our tour guides on a walk-thru of the rooms 

containing the exhaust emission exposure chambers, emission 

dilution equipment, and the test engine/engine dynamometers. We 

were also shown briefly around their laboratory animal care 

facility.
# C_2018190EN.01002501.xml

| 4.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 April 2018 — Şölen Çikolata Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret v EUIPO (BOBO cornet)

(Case T-648/16) (1)

1

((European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark BOBO cornet - Prior EU figurative mark OZMO cornet - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 190/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Şölen Çikolata Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ (Şehitkamil Gaziantep, Turkey) (represented by: T. Tsenova, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Elka Zaharieva (Plovdiv, Bulgaria)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 July 2016 (Case R 906/2015-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Şölen Çikolata Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret and Ms Zaharieva.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Şölen Çikolata Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Şölen Çikolata Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 402, 31.10.2016.

1

---
Case 2:02-cv-04360-RBS Document 38-2 Filed 02/26/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:02-cv-04360-RBS Document 38-2 Filed 02/26/2007 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**The Board of DirectorsHusky Energy Inc.     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the RegistrationStatement (No. 333-117972) onForm F-9 of HuskyEnergy Inc. (the “Company”) of our report datedFebruary 6, 2006 relating to the consolidated balancesheets of the Company as at December 31, 2005, 2004 and2003, and the related consolidated statements of earnings,retained earnings and cash flows for each of the years in thethree year period ended December 31, 2005, which reportappears in the 2005 annual report onForm 40-F of HuskyEnergy Inc. for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 andfurther consent to the use of such report in such annual reporton Form 40-F, andto the inclusion of our comments for US Readers onCanada-US ReportingDifferences which appears in the Registration Statement./s/ KPMG llp KPMG llpChartered AccountantsCalgary, Alberta, CanadaFebruary 6, 2006
No. 55857.

protests 152251-K, etc. (New York).

#### Allied Food Corp. of Am. et al. *v.*United States,

*311Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
1 

Proposed Update to current Imputed Costs USSGL Account 673000 (Effective Fiscal Year 2019) Account Title: Imputed Costs Account Number: 673000 Normal Balance: Debit Definition: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) limits recognition of imputed costs to specific categories Circular No. A-136, "Financial Reporting Requirements," as amended. The amount of costs incurred by a Federal entservices provided and paid for in total, or in part, by other Federal entities. Business-type activities, all personnel be

Judgement Fund settlements are required to be reported. Agencies may elect to recognize imputed costs for other 

costs. The balance in this account must equal the balance in USSGL account 578000, "Imputed Financing Sources." Justification: This account definition needs updated to reflect new guidance from SFFAS No. 55, Amending Inter-ent

which became effective for FY19 reporting.
**Exhibit 31.2**Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002I, Thomas L. Carter, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Championship Auto RacingTeams, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in ExchangeAct Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the registrant and have:     (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared; and     (b) [*]     (c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and     (d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourth quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):     (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting, which are reasonably likelyto
21

 
adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and     (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.Date: November 14, 2005   /s/ Thomas L. Carter   Thomas L. Carter  Chief Financial Officer   * — Temporarily modified to eliminate certain references to internal control over financialreporting until the compliance date for management’s internal control report and relatedattestation.
22
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

_____________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

SERGIO VELAZQUEZ

_____________________________________

:

:

:

:

:

:

CRIMINAL ACTION

NO. 05-432-03

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 11th day of June, 2012, upon consideration of defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

the Indictment for Denial of Right to Speedy Trial (Document No. 193, filed March 13, 2012), the

Government’s Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Indictment for Denial of Right to Speedy

Trial (Document No. 197, filed March 29, 2012), and defendant’s Reply to Government’s Response to

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Indictment for Denial of Right to Speedy Trial (Document No. 199,

filed April 23, 2012), following a hearing and oral argument on April 27 and June 6, 2012, for the

reasons set forth in the Memorandum dated June 11, 2012, IT IS ORDERED that defendant’s Motion

to Dismiss the Indictment for Denial of Right to Speedy Trial is DENIED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all further proceedings are GOVERNED by the

Scheduling Order dated April 27, 2012. 

1

BY THE COURT:

 /s/ Hon. Jan E DuBois 

 JAN E. DUBOIS, J.

 Defense counsel shall provide the Court with a report on or before June 18, 2012, with 1

respect to trial status. The case is specially listed for trial to begin on July 9, 2012, at 10:00 A.M. 

All trial-related documents must be filed and served on or before June 18, 2012.
# 01front.doc

# 02conts.doc

# 03summ.doc

# 04chap1.doc

# 05fig1.doc

# 06fig2.doc

# 07fig3.doc

# 08chap2.doc

# 09tbl1.doc

# 10tbl2.doc

# 11tbl3.doc

# 12fig4.doc

# 13tbl4.doc

# 14tbl5.doc

# 15chap3.doc

# 16tbl6.doc

# 17tbl7.doc

# 18fig5.doc

# 19tbl8.doc

# 20fig6.doc

# 21tbl9.doc

# 22tbl10.doc

# 23fig7.doc

# 24fig8.doc

# 25tbl11.doc

# 26fig9.doc

# 27fig10.doc

# 28tbl12.doc

# 29fig11.doc

# 30fig12.doc

# 31tbl13.doc

# 32fig13.doc

# 33fig14.doc

# 34tbl14.doc

# 35fig15.doc

# 36fig16.doc

# 37tbl15.doc

# 38fig17.doc

# 39fig18.doc

# 40tbl16.doc

# 41fig19.doc

# 42fig20.doc

# 43tbl17.doc

# 44fig21.doc

# 45fig22.doc

# 46tbl18.doc

# 47fig23.doc

# 48fig24.doc

# 49tbl19.doc

# 50fig25.doc

# 51fig26.doc

# 52tbl20.doc

# 53fig27.doc

# 54fig28.doc

# 55tbl21.doc

# 56fig29.doc

# 57fig30.doc

# 58chap4.doc

# 59chap5.doc

# 60chap6.doc

# 61refs.doc

# 62evtbl.doc

# 63biblio.doc

# 64appa.doc

# 65appb.doc

# 66appc.doc

# 67appd.doc

# 68appe.doc

# Files.txt
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1494 

To amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act in order to increase 

the dividend exclusion, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 29, 2017 

Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself and Mr. SULLIVAN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act in order 

to increase the dividend exclusion, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘ANCSA Dividend Ex5 clusion Act of 2017’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DIVIDEND EXCLUSION INCREASE. 

7 Section 29(c)(A) of the Alaska Native Claims Settle8 ment Act (43 U.S.C. 1626(c)(A)) is amended by striking 

9 ‘‘exceed $2,000 per individual per annum’’ and inserting 

10 the following: ‘‘exceed— 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1494 IS

1 ‘‘(i) for any calendar year preceding 2017, 

2 $2,000 per individual per annum; and 

3 ‘‘(ii) for calendar year 2017 and all subse4 quent calendar years, $5,000 per individual per 

5 annum, to be adjusted for inflation in fiscal 

6 year 2022, and every 5 years thereafter, by in7 creasing the amount provided under this sub8 paragraph for the preceding year by the per9 centage increase in the Consumer Price Index 

10 for All Urban Consumers, as published by the 

11 Bureau of Labor Statistics, during the pre12 ceding 5-year period;’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with BILLS
|  |  |  |
|--|--|--|

||
||

| About the Commission |                                Hearings |                                                        Press |                                 Archive |                                        For Families |                                                        Contact UsNinth Public Hearing Archive
The Commission's ninth public hearing was held on April 8, 2004, in Washington, DC. The Commission heard testimony from Dr. Condoleezza Rice, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. 
Thursday, April 8 2004Full TranscriptPDF Version, *188 KB*HTML Version, *13 KB*Windows MediaReal MediaLowHighLowHigh |  | **Current News**                        The Commission held its twelfth and final public hearing on "The 9/11 Plot" and "National Crisis Management" June 16-17, 2004, in Washington, DC. [more]
The Commission held its eleventh public hearing on "Emergency Response" May 18-19, 2004 at New School University in New York City. [more]                                                                                                
**Commission Members**Thomas H. Kean*Chair*Lee H. Hamilton*Vice Chair*Richard Ben-VenisteFred F. FieldingJamie S. GorelickSlade GortonBob KerreyJohn F. LehmanTimothy J. RoemerJames R. Thompson
**Commission Staff**Philip D. Zelikow*Executive Director*Chris Kojm*Deputy Executive Director*Daniel Marcus*General Counsel*
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States                        Tel: 202-331-4060   [email protected]   Fax: 202-296-5545 |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
(Reap. Dec. 8607)

Entry Nos. 795805; 795263.

#### Penson & Company *v.*United States

(Decided June 27, 1956)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawkence, Judge:

There was no appearance on behalf of the appealing party when the above-enumerated appeals for a reappraisement were called for hearing.

Rule 6 (a) of the rules of this court provides that—

> * * * Where the plaintiff, petitioner, or appellant, or his attorney, in a case does not appear when the same is called, and after the opposite party has had opportunity to present evidence on the issues, it may be deemed submitted and may be decided by the court on the record as it appears therein.

In conformity with the requirements of the rule, I have examined the record in the appeals before the court and find nothing therein which tends in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness which attaches to the decision of the appraiser. I find and hold, therefore, that the proper value of the merchandise is the value returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
**Exhibit 12.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Michael Diekmann, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Allianz Aktiengesellschaft; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly presentin all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company and have: 

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the company, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

(b) [Omitted in accordance with the guidance of SEC release No. 33-8238] 

 

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; 

 

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by theannual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the company’s auditors and the audit committee of the company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the company’s internal controlover financial reporting. 

 

Date: April 19, 2005
September 10, 2013



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

DANIEL MARRITT STALE Y , Appellant

NO. 14

- 13

- 00658

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. The record indicates that the appeal should be DISMISSED . The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion and this de cision be certified below for observance.