alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 41 (Friday, March 2, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 9608]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3675]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 5706]


Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition; 
Determinations: ``Van Gogh and Expressionism''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 
of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of 
April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Van Gogh and Expressionism'', imported 
from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of 
cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan 
agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that 
the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Neue Galerie 
New York, New York, New York, from on or about March 22, 2007, until on 
or about July 2, 2007, and at possible additional venues yet to be 
determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these 
Determinations is ordered to be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Wolodymyr Sulzynsky, Attorney-
Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State 
(telephone: (202) 453-8050). The address is U.S. Department of State, 
SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.

    Dated: February 26, 2007.
C. Miller Crouch,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural 
Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. E7-3675 Filed 3-1-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
Exhibit 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 Wired Associates Solutions Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending July 31, 2011 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Jacqueline Winwood, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
14th day of September, 2011.


/s/ Jacqueline Winwood
------------------------------------
Jacqueline Winwood
Chief Financial Officer
Before the Second Division,

August 23, 1950

No. 54625.

#### Norman G. Jensen *v.*United States,

petitions 6651-R, etc. (Pembina).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

At the trial the petitioner’s witness testified that he contacted the Grain Exchange in Winnipeg, Canada, in order to ascertain the current value of screenings for entry purposes and that in making entry of the importations he knew of no other dutiable value for the merchandise than that shown on the entries. Upon the entire record the court was satisfied that there was no intent to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petitions were therefore granted.
#### Artzberger, Appellant, *v.*Artzberger.

*Divorce*— *Cruel and barbarous treatment*— *Indignities to the person*— Evidence—Sufficiency.

In an action for divorce, on the ground of cruel and barbarous treatment, a libel is properly dismissed, where the evidence is lacking in weight and importance necessary to support a decree.

Argued December 4,1924.

Appeal, No. 132, April T., 1925, by libellant, from decree of C. P. Allegheny Co., Jan. T., 1923, No. 2292, dismissing libel in divorce in the case of Walter E. Artzberger v. Laura P. Artzberger.

Before Orlady, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.

Affirmed.

Libel in divorce. Before Rowand, J.

The case was referred to J. Frank Peffer, Esq., as master, who recommended a divorce.

On exceptions to the master’s report the court sustained the exceptions and dismissed the libel. Libellant appealed.

*Errors assigned*were, among others, in sustaining the exceptions to the master’s report and the decree of the court.

*Thomas M. Marshall, Jr.,*and with him *Thomas M. Marshall,*for appellant.

*Edwin B. Goldsmith,*and with him *Charles B. Prichard,*for appellee.

February 27, 1925:

Opinion by

Henderson, J.,

An examination of the evidence in this case brings us to the same conclusion at which the court below arrived. The testimony in support of the libel is lacking in the *353weight and importance necessary to support a decree of divorce for cruel and barbarous treatment and indignities to the person. That part of it having any specific bearing on the charge in the libel is contradicted and is met by a countercharge of reprehensible conduct on the part of the complainant. It was the burden of the latter to make out his case by clear and satisfactory evidence. Transient exhibitions of an irritable disposition are not weighty in their bearing on the cause of action as set forth in the libel. The testimony taken as a whole gives the impression to us that the libellant was moved by other considerations than the conduct of his wife in instituting this proceeding. It is unnecessary to engage in an extended analysis of the evidence. That has been done by the learned judge of the court below. It is sufficient to say that the evidence offered by the appellant is not convincing when read in connection with that presented in rebuttal.

The decree of the court below is therefore affirmed and the libel dismissed at the cost of the appellant.
Exhibit 32.01

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to the requirements set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and
Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. § 1350), I, Michael E. Hart, the President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Allos
Therapeutics, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge:

Dated:
March 2, 2004

| | /s/MICHAEL E. HARTMichael E. Hart
President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer
(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial
Officer)
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A
signed original of this written statement has been provided to Allos Therapeutics, Inc. and will be retained by Allos Therapeutics, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. This certification "accompanies" the Form 10-K to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the SEC and is not to be incorporated
by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the
Form 10-K), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

---

QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>5
<LEGEND>
KOLLMORGEN CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES                   EXHIBIT 27
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED
      IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000

<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                      JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                        DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                  13,445
<SECURITIES>                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                           43,189
<ALLOWANCES>                               772
<INVENTORY>                             22,450
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        85,702
<PP&E>                                  97,398
<DEPRECIATION>                         (72,251)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         141,330
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   61,008
<BONDS>                                      0
<COMMON>                                26,914
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0
<PREFERRED>                                  0
<OTHER-SE>                              (5,135)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           141,330
<SALES>                                212,664
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       230,424
<CGS>                                  142,030
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          152,928
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        64,056
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       5,806
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          8,904
<INCOME-TAX>                                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      8,904
<DISCONTINUED>                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
<CHANGES>                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                             8,904
<EPS-PRIMARY>                             0.86
<EPS-DILUTED>                             0.86




</TABLE>
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

BARRY CULBERT,

Plaintiff, 2:04-cv-2434-GEB-DAD-PS

vs.

GARET ONLEY,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the above-entitled action. The matter was

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(c)(21).

On January 9, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. Plaintiff has

filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis.

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02434-GEB-DAD Document 24 Filed 02/01/06 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed January 9, 2006, are adopted in full;

and

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice.

Dated: January 31, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02434-GEB-DAD Document 24 Filed 02/01/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 58563.

protest 183994-K (Los Angeles).

#### New York Merchandise Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of compass rings similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 58039, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit 13

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 City Telecom (H.K.) Limited (the Company) on
Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such officers 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 as of the dates and for the
periods expressed in the Report.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       |  |                         |  |                        
|---------------------- |  | ----------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: January 26, 2007 |  |                         |  |                        
|                       | 
|                       |  | /s/ Wong Wai Kay, Ricky
|                       |  | Name:                   |  | Wong Wai Kay, Ricky    
|                       |  | Title:                  |  | Chairman               
|                       | 
|                       |  | /s/ Lai Ni Quiaque     
|                       |  | Name:                   |  | Lai Ni Quiaque         
|                       |  | Title:                  |  | Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350
and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Michael A. Sweet,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-2703 FCD PAN P

vs. Order

O. C. O’Connor, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff is a state prisoner without counsel seeking to

commence a civil rights action. This proceeding was referred to

this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1). 

The complaint states cognizable claims for relief against

defendants O’Connor, Campbell, Boyd, Purifoi, Lattimore and

Cornish pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). 

Accordingly, the court hereby orders that:

1. Service is appropriate for defendants O’Connor, 

Case 2:04-cv-02703-FCD-EFB Document 12 Filed 01/06/06 Page 1 of 3
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

Campbell, Boyd, Purifoi, Lattimore and Cornish.

2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff six USM-285

forms, one summons, an instruction sheet and one copy of the

August 17, 2005, pleading.

3. Within 30 days from service of this order, plaintiff

shall complete the attached Notice of Submission of Documents and

submit it to the court with the completed summons and USM-285

forms and five copies of the August 17, 2005, pleading.

4. Upon receipt of the necessary materials, the court will

direct the United States Marshal to serve defendants O’Connor,

Campbell, Boyd, Purifoi, Lattimore and Cornish pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 without payment of costs. 

Dated: January 5, 2006. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02703-FCD-EFB Document 12 Filed 01/06/06 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Michael A. Sweet,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-2703 FCD PAN P

vs. Notice of Submission of Documents

O. C. O’Connor, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff hereby submits the following documents in

compliance with the court's order filed :

 completed summons form

 completed forms USM-285 

 copies of the 

 Amended Complaint

Dated: 

 _________________________________

Plaintiff

Case 2:04-cv-02703-FCD-EFB Document 12 Filed 01/06/06 Page 3 of 3
#### Joseph George et al., Appellants, v JCT Leasing Corporation, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

[634 NYS2d 171]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated July 22, 1994, as granted the motion of the defendant JCT Leasing Corporation for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, the motion of JCT Leasing Corporation is denied, and the complaint is reinstated insofar as it is asserted against that defendant.

The plaintiff Joseph George was struck by a truck driven by his coworker, the defendant Jose Orellana, and owned by the defendant JCT Leasing Corporation (hereinafter JCT). At the time of the accident, the injured plaintiff was standing behind the truck and watching the traffic in preparation for directing the driver into a parking spot. It is uncontroverted that pursuant to the lease agreement between the injured plaintiff’s employer and JCT, the latter was responsible for the maintenance and repair of the truck.

*591Here, the plaintiffs have alleged that JCT was negligent in failing to maintain the alarm which sounds when the vehicle is put in reverse. In the papers submitted by the plaintiffs in opposition to the summary judgment motion, they have succeeded in establishing the existence of a material factual question with reference to whether the reverse alarm was functioning at the time the rear of the subject vehicle struck the injured plaintiff *(see generally, Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 562). Balletta, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.
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

MITCHELL KLEMASKE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1750 FCD KJM P

vs.

MICHAEL BRUNNELL, et al., 

Defendant. ORDER

 /

On August 24, 2004, plaintiff, a state prison inmate then proceeding in pro per,

filed a complaint alleging causes of action under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the

Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132. On February 9, 2005, the court found the

complaint appropriate for service on defendants Brunell and Woodford. On April 19, 2005,

defendants Brunnell and Woodford filed a motion to dismiss. 

 On June 23, 2005, attorneys Claudia Center and Lewis Bossing of The Legal Aid

Society, Employment Law Center, entered an appearance on behalf of plaintiff and opposed the

motion to dismiss.

On November 9, 2005, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint alleging causes of

action under the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132, the Rehabilitation Act, 29

U.S.C. §§ 791, et seq., and California Government Code § 11135. On November 23, 2005,

Case 2:04-cv-01750-LKK-JFM Document 30 Filed 12/23/05 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

defendants filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint and set it for hearing before the

undersigned on December 28, 2005.

Local Rule 72-302 sets forth the duties to be performed by magistrate judges. 

Among these are 

Cases brought by a person in custody who is seeking habeas corpus

relief (28 U.S.C. § 2241 et seq., or any relief authorized by 42

U.S.C. § 1981 et seq.), including dispositive and non-dispositive

motions.

Local Rule 72-302 (c) (17). 

Because the amended complaint does not include a cause of action “authorized by

42 U.S.C. § 1981 et seq.”, the hearing on the motion to dismiss and all further proceedings

should be held before the District Court. 

Moreover, because plaintiff has filed an amended complaint, defendants’ first

motion to dismiss the original complaint is moot.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. The hearing on defendants’ motion to dismiss filed November 23, 2005,

currently set before the undersigned on December 28, 2005, is vacated and defendants are

directed to renotice their motion before the District Judge; 

2. Defendants’ April 19, 2005 motion to dismiss is denied as moot; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to change the “nature of suit” code in the

court’s records to reflect the causes of action pled in the first amended complaint. 

DATED: December 23, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

klem1750.ord

Case 2:04-cv-01750-LKK-JFM Document 30 Filed 12/23/05 Page 2 of 2
U.S. EPA-NVFEL Small SI Engine Setup 

1. The engine must have the following thermocouples installed: 

• Head temperature 

• Air inlet temperature 

• Oil sump temperature 

• Exhaust temperature 

The thermocouples should be K type with mini connectors (See Fig. 1). 

Fig. 1 

2. The engine must be supplied with any necessary external cooling, if applicable. 

3. The manufacturer must supply all oil needed for testing in a labeled container 

separate from the engine (i.e., may be one shipment consisting of two containers). 

The manufacturer must also supply the relevant MSDS Sheets. If shipping oil is 

problematic, please contact Bruce Sdunek at sdunek.bruce@epa.gov for 

assistance. 

4. The engine must be supplied with a manually adjustable throttle and governor 

control, if applicable. 

5. The engine must be supplied with the operator’s manual. 

6. The engine must be supplied with an 8 foot ignition wiring extension to allow for 

an ignition cut-off switch. The manufacturer need not supply the connector. 

7. The engine must be equipped with an hour meter with 1/10 hour resolution. The 

hour meter must be installed on the engine and reflect the number of operating 

hours accumulated on that engine. 

8. The engine must be equipped with a muffler, air cleaner, all emissions 

components consistent with the certification applications, and any other 

components needed to run the test. 

EPA-420-B-09-003 February 2009 
9. The manufacturer must supply a properly positioned fuel tank, or the appropriate 

fuel head pressure information if the engine is sold without a fuel tank. 

10. Dyno Hookup—Horizontal Engines 

The manufacturer is to supply the adapter needed for testing the engine. When 

the Engine arrives at NVFEL the adapter should be installed on the engine and 

ready for testing. EPA will use a Love-Joy LF16 coupler part number 38826. For 

horizontal engines please refer to Fig. 2 for adapter dimensions. The 

Manufacturer is responsible for selecting the appropriate material for the adapter. 

We recommend using 1040 cold rolled steel for adapters. 

± .002” tolerance 

”

 ” 

± .005” tolerance 

” 

” 

” 

” 

mm 

Fig. 2 

EPA-420-B-09-003 February 2009