alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2006057EN.01000101.xml

| 9.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 57/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 57/1

---

EU Action Plan on biological and toxin weapons, complementary to the EU Joint Action in support of the BTWC

(2006/C 57/01)

Introduction

The Council adopted on 27 February 2006 an EU Joint Action in support of the BTWC, including EU financial assistance. In addition, and complementary to the measures contained in that Joint Action, the EU hereby adopts an Action Plan on biological and toxin weapons. This Action Plan contains two measures to be implemented by EU Member States which do not require EU funding.

I.   Efficient use of CBM

Purpose

The EU wishes to revitalise interest in and use of CBMs. Increased use of CBMs would increase transparency in implementation of the BTWC.

Description

To this end, all EU Member States will ensure the fulfilment of their obligation under the BTWC to file a CBM return each year, beginning with 2006 as a first step. Notably, the EU will ensure that the current nine topics, each of which has its own reporting form, are reported each year by every BTWC State Party of the EU. Submission of CBM's by all EU Member States on a yearly basis would allow the EU to take diplomatic action towards other States Parties to the BTWC to fulfil their obligations under the Convention. EU Member States will furthermore develop thoughts on how best to improve the effectiveness of CBM's in the context of the BTWC and discuss these with other BTWC States Parties.

II.   Investigations of alleged use of BW

Purpose

The EU wishes to increase the effectiveness of the current UN Secretary General's mechanism for investigating cases of alleged use of (chemical) biological and toxin weapons. This mechanism is well established in legal terms, having received the endorsement of both the General Assembly and the Security Council. Separately the EU believes that the mechanism, which is now 15 years old, should be reviewed and updated as necessary.

Description

EU Member States will consider and volunteer expertise to the Secretary General in helping him update the lists of experts and laboratories that he may call on for an investigation. EU Member States will aim to submit information to the UN Secretary-General by the end of December 2006 and review and update this information every two years. EU Member States will keep partners informed of the steps they have taken to implement this action and will work with like-minded UN members to achieve this.

---
No. 63104.

#### C. J. Tower & Sons and C. J. Tower & Sons of Niagara, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 321720-K and 321721-K (Buffalo).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of glued stock pine lumber of a length, width, and thickness which is recognized in the trade as lumber, if of 1-piece material. Applying the principle of the decision in *B. A. McKenzie & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(39 Cust. Ct. 52, C.D. 1903) to the stipulated facts, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Before the First Division,

October 30, 1951

No. 55942.

protests 102969-K and 173002-K (New York).

#### R. C. A. Mfg. Co. and Star Jewelry Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400-the court dismissed the protests.
================================================================================

EXHIBIT 32.2   GAMBINO APPAREL GROUP, INC.

                  Certification of Principal Executive Officer
                           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

I, Thomas Hagan, Chief Financial Officer of Gambino Apparel Group, Inc. (the
"Registrant"), certify that to the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2005 of the
Registrant (the "Report"):

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)[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
     Registrant.


Dated:  04/24/2006           /s/ THOMAS HAGAN
                             -----------------------
                             Thomas Hagan
                             Chief Financial Officer















--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before the Third Division,

March 25, 1949

No. 52965.

#### Binney & Smith Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 54506-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. *88,*C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on each of the entries involved. The protests were sustained to this extent.
#### William F. MORRIS, Claimant-Appellant, v. Anthony J. PRINCIPI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 00-7103.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 2, 2001.

Before MICHEL, CLEVENGER, and SCHALL, Circuit Judges.

*950ON MOTION

CLEVENGER, Circuit Judge.

*ORDER*

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs moves to summarily affirm the March 13, 2000 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. William F. Morris opposes.

On August 20, 1992, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirmed the May 6, 1991 decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals denying service connection for a lumbar spine disability and a left knee disability, an increased disability rating for residual leg damage and post traumatic stress disorder, and a total disability rating based on individual unemployability. In April 1999, Morris filed a motion with the Board seeking to collaterally attack the Board’s 1991 decision based on clear and unmistakable error (CUE), which the Board denied on June 23,1999. On March 13, 2000, the Veterans Court vacated the Board’s June 23, 1999 decision and dismissed the action on jurisdictional grounds. The Veterans Court ruled that, pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.1400(b), because it had affirmed the Board’s 1991 decision on direct review, the Board lacked jurisdiction to entertain Morris’s CUE claim. Morris appealed to this court.

This appeal was stayed pending a decision in *Disabled American Veterans v. Gober,*234 F.3d 682 (Fed.Cir.2000). The Secretary now moves for summary affir-mance of the March 13, 2000 decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims based on our recent decision in *Disabled American Veterans.*In *Disabled American Veterans,*this court, inter alia, upheld the validity of 38 C.F.R. § 20.1400(b), stating that the regulation “prevents the Board from reviewing a previous Board decision on an issue for CUE when the previous issue has been appealed to, or decided by a court of competent jurisdiction, such as the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.” *Id.*at 693. The court noted that when the Veterans Court “affirms the determination of the Board on a particular issue, the Board decision is replaced by the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims decision on that issue ... [and] there is no longer any ‘decision by the Board that [can be] subject to revision.’ ” *Id.*

Summary affirmance of a case “is appropriate, *inter alia,*when the position of one party is so clearly correct as a matter of law that no substantial question regarding the outcome of the appeal exists”). *Joshua v. United States,*17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed.Cir.1994). Because the sole issue in this case is the validity of 38 C.F.R. § 20.1400(b) and this court recently upheld the validity of that regulation in *Disabled American Veterans,*summary affirmance is appropriate.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The Secretary’s motion for summary affirmance is granted.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17A1971. KEVIN PUCKETT v. THE STATE.

Kevin Puckett was convicted of several offenses, includingmurder. Following

the denial of his motion for new trial, Puckett appealed to this Court. Under our

Constitution, however, the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over “[a]ll cases

in which a sentence of death was imposed or could be imposed.” See Ga. Const. of

1983, Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. III (8). Because a penalty of death can be imposed for the

crime of murder, jurisdiction is proper in the Supreme Court. See OCGA § 17-10-30

(b); Neal v. State, 290 Ga. 563, 572 (722 SE2d 765) (2012) (Hunstein, C. J.,

concurring); see also State v. Thornton, 253 Ga. 524, 524 (1) (322 SE2d 711) (1984)

(directing this Court to transfer “all casesin which either a sentence of death or of life

imprisonment has been imposed upon conviction of murder”). Accordingly,

Puckett’s appeal is hereby TRANSFERRED to the Supreme Court for disposition.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

June 28, 2017

06/28/2017
No. 50466.

#### Protests 67291-K, etc., of Swiss American Cheese Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

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

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title
18 of the United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Kreisler Manufacturing Corporation (the Company) does hereby certify with respect to the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-KSB for the period ended June 30,
2006 (the Report) that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                         |  |                        
|------------------------ |  | -----------------------
|Date: September 28, 2006 |  | /s/ Michael D. Stern   
|                         |  | Michael D. Stern       
|                         |  | Chief Executive Officer
|                         | 
|Date: September 28, 2006 |  | /s/ Edward A. Stern    
|                         |  | Edward A. Stern        
|                         |  | Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.



45
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ADRIAN E. WHITAKER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1794 FCD GGH P

vs.

W.N. SADY, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On June 19, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections

to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff has not filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that: 

\\\\\

Case 2:04-cv-01794-FCD-GGH Document 23 Filed 09/12/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

1. The findings and recommendations filed June 19, 2006, are adopted in full;

and

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

DATED:September 11, 2006

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01794-FCD-GGH Document 23 Filed 09/12/06 Page 2 of 2
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 
  





 
 Fabrinet USA, Inc. 

3736 Fallon Road, #428 
 Dublin, CA
94568 
 October 31, 2016 
 Hong Hou 

[Address] 
  

	Re:	Amendment to the Letter Agreement dated November 5, 2015 

 Dear Hong, 

Effective the date you sign this letter, this letter agreement (“Letter”) between you and Fabrinet USA, Inc. (“FUSA”) modifies certain
provisions of your earlier letter agreement with FUSA dated November 5, 2015 (the “Agreement”), as provided herein. 
 The Agreement, as a
Vesting Acceleration Benefit, provides in relevant part as follows: 
 “... in the event your employment is terminated: 1) by FUSA
without “good cause” (as defined in the Agreement) or 2) by you for “good reason” (as defined in the Agreement), you will ... (c) become 100% vested immediately prior to your termination date in any outstanding stock
options, restricted stock, restricted stock units, stock appreciation rights, phantom stock or other equity based awards granted to you by FUSA, which have not previously fully vested ...” 

Notwithstanding these terms in your Agreement, the above described Vesting Acceleration Benefit shall apply only to those Equity Awards that were granted to
you prior to August 2016 and, in all cases, shall not apply to any Equity Awards granted to you on or after August 1, 2016; provided, however, that the Vesting Acceleration Benefit shall remain applicable to the Equity Award of restricted stock
units that was approved in August 2016 by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Fabrinet (the “Committee”) to be granted to you under Fabrinet’s 2010 Performance Incentive Plan pursuant to Fabrinet’s Fiscal 2016
Long-Term Equity Plan as a result of the Committee’s determination that the applicable fiscal year 2016 performance criteria had been achieved. 

Except as modified by this Letter, the Agreement remains in full force and effect. 

Please sign and return one copy of this Letter to me no later than November 1, 2016, to acknowledge your agreement to the amendment of your Agreement in
accordance with this Letter. 
 This Letter will be governed by the laws of the State of California, with the exception of its conflict of laws provision.

 Sincerely, 
 Fabrinet USA, Inc. 

 

	
	
	/s/ Colin R. Campbell
	Colin R. Campbell
	General Counsel

  

	
	ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED:
	
	/s/ Hong Hou
	Hong Hou
	
	Date: 10/31/2016
No. 61856.

#### Corral, Wodiska & Company *v.*United States,

protest 138238-K (Tampa).

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the facts and issues are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Henry Clay and Book & Co., Ltd.*v. *United States*(41 C. C. P. A. 45, C. A. D. 527), it was held that refund should be made on the involved merchandise at the rates and in the amounts applicable.
DRAFT

ID

Simple or

Special Name Type Description Error Message 

78 SPECIAL

TFM 2-4700 Appendix 3 Fed-NonFed and Exchange-NonExchange Limitations Compound

Specific combinations of USSGL, Federal Non-Federal Code, and Exchange Nonexchange Code are not valid.

Invalid combination of USSGL, Federal and Exchange Nonexchange Code. Pl4700 Appendix 3 

U.S. Standard General Ledger

Data Validations - Summary

Part 1SUPPLEMENT

Bulletin No. 2021-17 DRAFT VII VSR - 1
69°15'E

69°E

68°45'E

68°30°E

46°00

J. =

A

/

—_— ae

eee ee ee ee ee eee ee

-_

od

ws *
~

== 2. ./ gee Jim. --<
aa

a

a,
see

ie" + - x ¢ ‘ "
~ -—s)) \T
> re >

4 - owning eS a 2

i

&.

a Aff. see

eee eee eee eee ee eee ee meee eee ee ee eee

ae

a ee eel eS

~ gh

;
=== =
. ;
4

+ :

we ae

SF See

eee ee le

—-

F 49

“
-

=e eee

ee. 5 ae

a

ZL

“we
-S<a=<--=
Oe,

 ) ae

aod

——=
a

----------
7 # t

——<——< =e ee
é

re

36°30'N

36°15'N

=
°

CO
ne)

35°45'N

10 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

Peak

A

CL]

— Road

5 MILES

Image quadrant or tile

Province boundary

O City, town, or village

—-— $tream, mostly intermittant
No. 55264.

#### Little Joe Wiesenfeld *v.*United States,

protests 151945-K, etc. (Baltimore).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of saddle girths similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 54419, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained. ,
# GASTAR EXPLORATION LTD

FORM 10-K (Annual Report)



## Filed 03/16/09 for the Period Ending 12/31/08

Address 1331 LAMAR STREET SUITE 1080 HOUSTON, TX 77010 Telephone 7137391800 CIK 0001170154 Symbol GST SIC Code 1311 - Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Industry Oil & Gas - Integrated Sector Energy Fiscal Year 12/31

http://www.edgar-online.com © Copyright 2009, EDGAR Online, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Distribution and use of this document restricted under EDGAR Online, Inc. Terms of Use.
No. 51395.

#### Protests 503765-G, etc., of Julius Kayser & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). In accordance therewith the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
<PAGE>

                                                      K-tel International, Inc.
                                                                 2000 Form 10-K
                                                                     Exhibit 21


SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

Subsidiaries of the Company and the jurisdiction in which each company was
incorporated are listed below. Unless otherwise indicated, all of the voting
securities of each subsidiary are owned by K-tel International, Inc. or one
of its subsidiaries.

         K-tel International (USA), Inc.
         Minneapolis, Minnesota (a Minnesota corporation)

         Dominion Entertainment, Inc.
         Minneapolis, Minnesota (a Minnesota corporation)

         K-tel Ireland Limited
         Dublin, Ireland (an Ireland Corporation)

         K-tel Entertainment (CAN) Inc.
         (formerly ERA International, Ltd.)
         Winnipeg, Manitoba (a Canada corporation)

         K-tel Marketing Limited
         London, England (an England corporation)

         K-tel Entertainment (U.K.) Ltd.
         London, England (an England corporation)

         K-tel (Australia) Pty. Limited
         Southport, Queensland, Australia (an Australian corporation)

         Seminars, Inc.
         Minneapolis, Minnesota (a Minnesota corporation)

         K-tel Consumer Products, Inc.
         Minneapolis, Minnesota (a Minnesota corporation)

         K-tel Direct, Inc.
         Minneapolis, Minnesota (a Minnesota corporation)

         K-tel TV, Inc.
         Minneapolis, Minnesota (a Minnesota corporation)

         K-tel Video, Inc.
         Minneapolis, Minnesota (a Minnesota corporation)

         K-tel Productions, Inc.
         Minneapolis, Minnesota (a Minnesota corporation)

         K-tel Online, Inc.
         Minneapolis, Minnesota (a Minnesota corporation)
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v ARTHUR A. GLIDDEN, Private, U. S. Army, Appellant

15 USCMA 62, 35 CMR 34

No. 17,616

September 18, 1964

*Colonel Joseph L. Chalk*and *Captain Charles W. Schiesser*were on the brief for Appellant, Accused.1

*Lieutenant Colonel Francis M. Cooper*and *Captain Charles M. Pallesen, Jr.,*were on the brief for Appellee, United States,

1

. Brief under Article 38(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 838, filed by Trial Defense Counsel, Captain Harvey B. Homel.

Opinion of the Court

Quinn, Chief Judge:

On his plea of guilty, a general court-martial in Verdun, France, convicted the accused of assault, with the intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm, in violation of Article 128, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 928. On review before the board of review, he challenged the validity of the method by which the enlisted members of the court were selected, and alleged “an Army-wide policy of barring low-ranking enlisted men from sitting on courts-martial.”

Although the evidence of thp selection process in this case is much more meager than that presented in United States v Crawford, 15 USCMA 31, 35 CMR 3, its substance is sufficiently close to justify consideration on the same basis. In the *Crawford*case, we sustained the method, as specifically designed and directly calculated to obtain enlisted persons with the statutory Qualifications for court members. Accordingly, the decision of the board .of review is affirmed.

Kilday, Judge

(concurring in the result) :

I concur in the result.

For the reasons set forth in my separate opinion in United States v Crawford, 15 USCMA 31, 35 CMR 3, I concur in the affirmance of the decision of the board of review.

Ferguson, Judge

(dissenting):

I dissent.

The evidence submitted regarding the policy of the command in which accused was tried indicates that nominees for appointment to his court-martial were expressly limited to those of “grade E-6 or above.” While this offered the convening authority a broader choice of eligible court members, he still restricted himself to those holding the noncommissioned officer grade of sergeant first class or above. For the reasons set forth in my separate opinion in United States v Crawford, 15 USCMA 31, 35 CMR 3, I am of the view that such was jurisdictional error. I would, therefore, reverse the board of review and order another trial before a properly constituted court-martial.
No. 64869.

#### The Henneux Company *v.*United States,

protest 58/16271.

Abstract 64621. (Initial No. 330301-K.) Plaintiff’s application for rehearing granted.
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 25, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-14-00738-CV

DAVID CASH MOORE, Appellant

V.

SHARON D. ALLEN, ET AL, Appellee

On Appeal from the 412th District Court

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 73303I

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an attempted appeal from an order granting a motion to strike 

appellant’s pleadings to intervene in Danny Jones v. Sharon D. Allen, et al, (412th 

District Court, Brazoria County, Texas, trial court cause number 73301I). Because 

the record does not contain a final judgment in that case, this is an interlocutory 

matter that is not permitted to be appealed by statute. See Jack B. Anglin Co. v. 

Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992). 
2

On October 29, 2014, notification was transmitted to all parties of the 

court’s intention to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 

42.3(a). Appellant filed no response.

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed and appellant’s pending 

motions are denied as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices McCally, Brown and Wise.