alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case No. 5,336.

#### The GEORGE LAW.

[3 Ben. 396.] 1

District Court, E. D. New York.

Sept., 1869.

Collision — Dangerous Manoel’vre.

Where a propeller attempted to pass close by a sloop, and just as she was passing, a puff of wind caught the sloop’s sail, and her boom swung out, and the propeller struck it, receiving damage: *Held,*that the propeller, having attempted a dangerous and uncalled-for man-oeuvre, must bear the consequences of it.

' This was a libel by Daniel Shea, owner of the propeller U. S. Grant, to recover damages for a collision. The propeller was coming down the East river, and saw ahead of her the sloop George Law and another propeller, so close together that there was not room to pass between the propeller and the boom of the sloop, as it was swung out As she approached, however, the sloop’s boom was hauled in, whereupon she undertook to pass between them, and, while passing, the boom swung out, and injured her.

D. McMahon, for libellant 1

Thomas Hooker, for claimant

BENEDICT, District Judge.

This case comes within the rule of the maritime law which imposes the risk of a dangerous and uncalled-for manoeuvre upon the party who undertakes it.

The proofs show that the propeller attempted to pass the sloop ahead, at a distance within the length of the sloop’s boom, and was struck by the boom in passing.

There was nothing to require the propeller to pass at the time, or in such close proximity as she did, but, assuming the ability of the men upon the sloop to keep the boom inboard, she took the risk. As it happened, a puff of wind caught the sheet out of the hands of the men on the sloop, and the boom swung out, and into the propeiler.

Such an occurrence should have been seen to be possible by those in charge of the propeller, and accident from it avoided by passing the sloop at a greater distance, as might easily have been done.

The libel is, accordingly, dismissed, with costs.
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 National Residential Properties, Inc.
(the "COMPANY") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended September 30, 2002 as filed
with the SEC on the date hereof (the "REPORT"), I hereby certify, in my capacity
as an officer of the Company, for purposes of 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

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

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

February 5, 2004

                             By: /s/ RICHARD ASTROM
                                ---------------------------
                             Richard Astrom
                             Chief Executive Officer

In connection with the annual report of National Residential Properties, Inc.
(the "COMPANY") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended September 30, 2002 as filed
with the SEC on the date hereof (the "REPORT"), I hereby certify, in my capacity
as an officer of the Company, for purposes of 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

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

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

                             By: /s/ CHRISTOPHER ASTROM
                                ---------------------------
                             Christopher Astrom
                             Chief Financial Officer

         February 5, 2004
**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 Quarterly Report of CHAAS Acquisitions, LLC (the "Company")
        on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities
        and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Alan C. Johnson,
        Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,
        as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
        that:
 
 (1)
        The
        Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
        the
        Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2)
        The
        information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
        the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
 
 
 
 
 /s/
        ALAN C. JOHNSON
 Alan
        C.
        Johnson
 President
        and Chief Executive Officer
 (Principal
        Executive Officer)
 August
        15 , 2005
# C_2008120EN.01001501.xml

| 16.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 120/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 120/15

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to the driver-perceived noise level of wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors’ (Codified version)

COM(2007) 588 final — 2007/0205 (COD)

(2008/C 120/03)

On 24 October 2007, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to the driver-perceived noise level of wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors (codified version).

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to the driver-perceived noise level of wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors (codified version).

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 440th plenary session of 12 and 13 December 2007 (meeting of 12 December), by 135 votes with 2 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Brussels, 12 December 2007.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

---
No. 50068.

#### Protests 99854-K, etc., of Otto Roth & Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation that certain of the cheeses were similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706), Abstracts 42148 and 49269, the merchandise was held properly dutiable upon the basis of the net weight of the cheeses as returned by the Government weigher, less *2%*percent for coverings. Cheese stipulated to be the same in all material respects as that the subject of *United States*v. *Wheeler & Miller*(32 C. C. P. A. 22, C. A. D. 280) and *Wheeler & Miller*v. *United States*(6 Cust. Ct. 252, C. D. 475) was held properly dutiable at 5 cents per pound, but not less than 20 percent ad valorem, under paragraph 710 as modified by T. D. 48554.
No. 55266.

#### Tropical Hobbyland *v.*United States,

protests 166202-K and 166203-K (Tampa).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of live birds similar in all material respects to those the-subject of *Alfred Mazer*v. *United States*(25 Cust. Ct. 67, C. D. 1265), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 47381.

#### Protests 989803-G, etc., of Union Brokerage Co. (Pembina).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

It was stipulated that the lumber in question is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Seaboard Lumber Sales Co.*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 161, C. D. 391). In accordance therewith it was held that the tax imposed should have been assessed on the basis of the condition in which imported, and that no addition should have been made for the planing, tonguing, and grooving. Protests sustained to this extent.
Before the Second Division,

May 27, 1959

No. 63107.

#### John L. Westland & Son, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 329469-K (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that the material of which the handles of the knives in question were made consists of imitation horn, pyroxylin, casein, or other similar material, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit 23(b), Form 10-K
                                                  Kansas City Life
                                                  Insurance Company

                        Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No.  2-97351)  pertaining to the Kansas City Life Insurance  Company Savings
and Profit  Sharing Plan of our report  dated  February 18, 2000 with respect to
the financial statements and schedules of the Kansas City Life Insurance Company
Savings and Profit  Sharing Plan  included in this Annual Report (Form 11-K) for
the year ended December 31, 1999.


                                                     /s/Ernst & Young LLP

Kansas City, Missouri
March 24, 2000
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/LPS4003 lost

The target resource for this PURL can no longer be traced. The following is a list of the targets this PURL was previously assigned to.

Powered by the Federal Depository Library Program.                A service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office.
Exhibit








	
								
	Annex 1 (3rd Amendment) to the Corporate Guarantee dated August 11th, 2014 in the amount of EUR 30 mn

	in connection with the Umbrella Facility Agreement in the amount of EUR 30 mn dated 21.07.2014 including the 1st Amendment dated 01.10.2015, the 2nd Amendment dated 18.04.2016 and the 3rd Amendment dated 21.09.2016 (the "Umbrella Facility Agreement")

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	The following branches and subsidiaries of Deutsche Bank AG ("Lending Offices") have entered into business relationship

	with the subsidiaries of IPG Laser GmbH (named hereinafter "IPG Laser Group")

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	In this context the following facilities of the Umbrella Credit Agreement dated 21.07.2014 have been allocated

	inter alia for the use of the companies listed hereafter:

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Summary of credit agreements for the IPG Laser Group of companies in Germany and abroad:

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Debtor
	Lending Office
	local currency
	amount (in currency)
	Facility 1
Cash
	Facility 2
Guarantee 
	Facility 3
Margin Line 
	total

	if not in EURO convert to EURO

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	IPG Photonics (Italy) s.r.l., Via Kennedy 21, 20023 Cerro Maggiore (Milano), Italy
	Deutsche Bank Spa, Milano, Italy
	 
	 
	3,000,000
	0
	0
	3,000,000

	IRE-Polus NTO, 141190, Fryazino pl. Vvedenskogo, Russia
	Deutsche Bank Ltd., Moscow, Russia
	 
	 
	0
	0
	0
	0

	IPG Photonics (Beijing) Fiber Laser Technology Company Limited
	Deutsche Bank Ltd., Beijing, China
	 
	 
	2,000,000
	1,000,000
	7,000,000
	10,000,000

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	0

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	0

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	0

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	0

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	0

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	0

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	0

	Total credit lines based on the guarantee  
	 
	 
	 
	5,000,000 
	1,000,000 
	7,000,000 
	13,000,000 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Burbach, November 1, 2016
	 
	Köln,  21st September 2016
	 
	 
	 

	Place and date
	 
	Place and date
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	/s/ Eugene Scherbakov
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	IPG Laser GmbH
	 
	/s/ Bolo Baedorf                  /s/ Joachim Gartz
	 

	(legally binding signatures of the Guarantor)
	 
	(Deutsche Bank AG Filiale Deutschlandgeschäft)
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	/s/ Timothy P.V. Mammen  November 1, 2016
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	(legally binding signature of IPG Photonics Corporation)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SOOK HEE JUNG, AKA Xianghua Shen,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney

General,

Respondent. No. 14

- 73711

Agency No. A204

- 836

- 863

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 7, 2017 **

Pasadena, California

Before: CALLAHAN and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and FABER, *** District

Judge.

Sook Hee Jung, a native and citizen of South Korea, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable David A. Faber, United States District Judge for the

Southern District of West Virginia, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

SEP 11 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 14

- 73711

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying adjustment of status. We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and w e deny in part and dismiss in part the

petition for review.

We review questions of law de novo and the agency’s factual determinat ions

for substantial evidence. Cortez

- Pineda v. Holder , 610 F.3d 1118, 1121 (9th Cir.

2010). Su

bstantial evidence suppor ts the agency’s determination that Jung did not

meet her burden of demonstrating that she was “waved” into the United States at a

port of entry and, therefore, “inspected and admitted” for the purpose of

adjustment of status . 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a); Matter of Quilantan , 25 I & N Dec. 285,

286, 293 (BIA 2010). There were inconsistencies between Jung’s testimon y and

immigration documents submitted on her behalf. Jung did not explain those

inconsistencies nor did she provide sufficient documentation to corrobo rate her

testimony that her entry was procedurally regular for pu rposes of adjustment of

status. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(d) (stating that applicant bears the burden of

establishing eligibility for relief from removal).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Jung ’s unexhausted contention s that the IJ

did not provide her sufficient notice and opportunity to produce corroborative

evidence or to explain its unavailability and that the IJ failed to provide specific

and cogent reasons for rejecting her explanations regarding the inconsistencies

between her testimony and the documentary evidence. See Tijani v. Holder , 6283 14

- 73711

F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) ( “We lack jurisdiction to review legal claims not

presented in an alien’s administrative proceedings before the BIA.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part

.
---

---

Exhibit 4.(a).61



The State of Israel
Ministry of Communications

| | General
License of Partner Fixed Communications Solutions Limited Partnership for the Provision
of Domestic Fixed-Line Telecommunication Services
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment
No. 1

| | By
virtue of the powers of the Minister of Communications under Article 4 (e) of the
Communications Law (Telecommunications and Broadcasts), 5742-1982, that have been
delegated to us, by all our other powers under any law and after having given Partner
Fixed Communications Solutions Limited Partnership (hereinafter:
Partner) the opportunity to present their arguments regarding this
matter, we hereby amend the Exclusive General License for the provision of Domestic
Fixed-Line Telecommunication Services, granted to Partner on 15 January 2007, as follows:
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# Amendment of Article 59

| | 1. | In Article 59.2, instead of Within no more than 30 days of the start
               date shall come: Within no more than two days of the start
               date.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# Amendment of Article 64

| | 2. | In
Article 64.8 (b), the words and a magnetized label shall be
          deleted.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# Amendment of Article 103

| | 3. | In
Article 103.3, instead of 10 Hagavish Street, P.O.B. 4060, Natanya
               42140 shall come: 8Amal, Afeq Industrial Park, P.O.B 435".
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(16 January, 2007)

| | (sgd)
Mordechai Mordechai  Director-General | (sgd)
Haim Giron, Adv.Senior Deputy Director-General,Engineering and Licensing
| | --------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



---

---
**Exhibit 31.2**
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, James A. Yost, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Hayes LemmerzInternational, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:
a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared; b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: June 9, 2004                                /s/ James A. Yost   James A. Yost   Vice President, Finance, and Chief Financial Officer  
39
# C_2008010EN.01002102.xml

| 15.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 10/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 10/21

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the coupling device and the reverse of wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors (codified version)’

COM(2007) 319 final — 2007/0117 (COD)

(2008/C 10/06)

On 2 July 2007 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 438th plenary session of 26 and 27 September 2007 (meeting of 26 September), by 163 votes to one with five abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Brussels, 26 September 2007.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

---
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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DIRECTV, INC., a California ) 2:04-cv-02057-GEB-DAD

corporation, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER CONTINUING STATUS

) (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING)

ALLEN VIGGERS, ) CONFERENCE

)

Defendant. )

)

Plaintiff’s September 6, 2005, Status Report states the

default judgment in this matter is currently pending before the

magistrate judge. Therefore, the Status Conference is continued to

December 12, 2005, at 9:00 a.m. Plaintiff shall file a status report

no later than November 28, 2005, in which Plaintiff is only required

to explain the status of the default issue. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 7, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge 

Case 2:04-cv-02057-GEB-DAD Document 28 Filed 09/06/05 Page 1 of 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 annual report of General Steel Holdings, Inc. (the
      "Company"), on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") on the date hereof (the "Report"),
      the undersigned officer of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
      as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,
      to
      the best of his knowledge:





i.
      the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





ii.
      the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will
      be
      retained by the Company and will be furnished to the SEC or its staff upon
      request.


Date:
                August 20, 2007
              By:
              /s/
                Zuo
                Sheng YuZuo
                      Sheng YuTitle:
                      Chief Executive Officer and
                      Chairman
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of Appeals3042327-JUN-201108:24 AM