alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Komatsu Ltd.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material 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 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 present in 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 and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting(as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) 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
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused
such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our
supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of
financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external
purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;(c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the companys disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the companys internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the
annual 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 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 reasonably
likely 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 control
over financial reporting.
  By:
    /s/ Kunio NojiKunio NojiPresident, Chief Executive Officer  20
----

----

|  Tel-Aviv, Israel   |   | /s/  Kesselman & Kesselman                           |   |
|------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|  March 10, 2015          |   | Certified Public Accountants (Isr.)                                |   |
|                               |   | A member firm of PriceWaterhouseCoopers International Limited |   |

|      Kesselman & Kesselman, Trade Tower, 25 Hamered Street, Tel-Aviv 68125, Israel,                              |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|       P.O Box 50005 Tel-Aviv 61500  Telephone: +972 -3- 7954555, Fax:+972 -3- 7954556, www.pwc.com/il |

----

----
No. 51458.

#### Petition 6375-R of Pan Pacific Importers (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

At the trial it was disclosed that an item appearing on the various invoices as “Our buying commission 10%” was deducted as a nondurable charge and the merchandise was appraised as entered. The collector took an appeal for reappraisement, the trial court holding that the item was not a buying commission but rather a selling commission and therefore a dutiable item (Reap. Dec. 5635, affirmed in Reap. Dec. 5804). It was established in the reappraisement proceedings that the importer dealt directly with the exporter as the seller of the merchandise; that the exporter did not buy for his own account and sell to the importer; and that the importer was fully aware of these facts. It was held that the evidence presented is insufficient to establish that the petitioner in making entry was without intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore denied.
Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2016 (the Report) of TICC Capital Corp. (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Jonathan H. Cohen, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that: (1)

          The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (2)

          The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant. /s/ Jonathan H. CohenName: Jonathan H. Cohen Date:  November 7, 2016
No. 63154.

#### Inter-Maritime Forwarding Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 58/18483 (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5(b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

MARLON INMON, DOC #992677, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) Case No. 2D17-4855 STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed April 26, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Ronald Ficarrotta, Judge. Brett S. Chase of Chase Law Florida, P.A., Saint Petersburg, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Michael Schaub, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

KELLY, SLEET, and LUCAS, 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

ERIC BROWN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV-S-04-2213 FCD GGH PS

vs.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS,

Defendant. ORDER

__________________________________/

On April 27, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

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

findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. No objections were filed.

 Accordingly, the court presumes any findings of fact are correct. See Orland v.

United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1999). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are

reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir.

1983).

The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing,

concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the Proposed Findings and Recommendations in full.

\\\\\

Case 2:04-cv-02213-FCD-GGH Document 30 Filed 05/31/05 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

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The Proposed Findings and Recommendations filed April 27, 2005, are

ADOPTED; and

2. Defendants’ February 23, 2005, motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint is

granted, and this action is dismissed with prejudice.

DATED:May 27, 2005

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL JR.

United States District Judge

brown2213.jo

Case 2:04-cv-02213-FCD-GGH Document 30 Filed 05/31/05 Page 2 of 2
Before the Third Division,

December 16, 1954

No. 58602.

protests 231218-K, 231219-K, and 229440-K (New York).

#### Schroeder Bros., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

An examination of the official records failing to disclose any reason for disturbing the action of the collector, which was presumptively correct, the protests were overruled.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7532

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RICHARD L. DIXON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Elizabeth V. Hallanan, Senior District Judge. (CR-96-191, CA-99-1011-2) Submitted: April 27, 2001 Decided: June 7, 2001 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clayton Reed Kaeiser, Miami, Florida, for Appellant. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Richard L. Dixon seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion agreeing with the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Dixon , Nos. CR-96-191; CA99-1011-2 (S.D.W. Va. Sept. 7, 2000). We decline to consider Dixon’s claims that he was denied effective assistance of counsel on direct appeal because he failed to raise these claims in the district court. Muth v. United States , 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
No. 48555.

#### Protest 781413-G of H. A. Astlett & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

At the trial it appeared that Dennison cardboard tags were fastened to the bags with wires, and that the sampler reported that the cards attached to the bags bore the words “Made in England.” The collector required that the bags be marked by stencil with the words “Made in England” before being released. The plaintiff made no effort to establish that the tags would not become removed from the bags when they were opened. The evidence was held not sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s decision. The protest was therefore overruled. *United States*v. *Monteverde & Parodi, Inc.*(26 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 2) cited.
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 Hong Kong Television Network Limited (the Company) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended
August 31, 2013, 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
Section 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: December 27, 2013



HONG KONG TELEVISION NETWORK LIMITEDBy:

/s/ To Wai BingName:

To Wai BingTitle:

Chief Executive OfficerBy:

/s/ Wong Nga Lai, AliceName:

Wong Nga Lai, AliceTitle:

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.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT

The Board of Directors
Witness Systems, Inc.:

     Under date of February 21, 2000, we reported on the consolidated balance
sheets of Witness Systems, Inc. and subsidiary (the "Company") as of December
31, 1998 and 1999, and the related consolidated statements of operations,
stockholders' deficit, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year
period ended December 31, 1999 included herein. In connection with our audits of
the aforementioned consolidated financial statements, we also audited the
related consolidated financial statement schedule included herein. The financial
statement schedule is the responsibility of the Company's management. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on the financial statement schedule
based on our audits.

     In our opinion, such financial statement schedule, when considered in
relation to the basic consolidated financial statements taken as a whole,
presents fairly, in all material aspects, the information set forth therein.

                                          /s/ KPMG LLP

Atlanta, Georgia
February 21, 2000
#### Carol A. Famularo et al., Appellants, v Bela Havasi et al., Appellants, and Brooklyn Union Gas, Respondent.

[635 *588NYS2d 495]

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), dated May 13, 1994, which granted the motion of the defendant Brooklyn Union Gas for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims against it. The defendants Bela Havasi and Margreth Havasi separately appeal from the same order.

Ordered that the order is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal of the defendants Bela Havasi and Margreth Havasi is dismissed as withdrawn; and it is further,

Ordered that the defendant Brooklyn Union Gas is awarded one bill of costs.

The plaintiff Carol Ann Famularo was injured when an explosion occurred as she was attempting to light the pilot light on a gas furnace located in the basement of a building owned by the defendants Bela Havasi and Margreth Havasi.

It is well established that summary judgment will be granted only if there are no material and triable issues of fact *(see, Sill-man v Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp.,*3 NY2d 395, 404). Summary judgment is a drastic remedy and will not be granted if there is any doubt as to the existence of a triable issue. "On a motion for summary judgment the court is not to determine credibility, but whether there exists a factual issue, or if arguably there is a genuine issue of fact” *(Capelin Assocs. v Globe Mfg. Corp.,*34 NY2d 338, 341). "But only the existence of a bona fide issue raised by evidentiary facts and not one based on conclusory or irrelevant allegations will suffice to defeat summary judgment” *(Rotuba Extruders v Ceppos,*46 NY2d 223, 231).

Contrary to the plaintiff’s arguments, there is nothing in the record from which it could be inferred that the defendant Brooklyn Union Gas either had notice of the alleged defect or had negligently serviced the furnace. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the motion of the defendant Brooklyn Union Gas for summary judgment *(see, Reid v Westchester Light. Co.,*236 NY 322; *Pernick v Central Union Gas Co.,*183 App Div 543, *affd*228 NY 594; *Jacques v Fleuren,*136 AD2d 850; *cf., Royal v Brooklyn Union Gas Co.,*122 AD2d 132). Balletta, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 5049 

To modify the definition of disaster in the Small Business Act to include 

low or no snowfall amounts, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 12, 2024 

Ms. BALDWIN (for herself, Ms. SMITH, and Ms. KLOBUCHAR) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 

Small Business and Entrepreneurship 

A BILL 

To modify the definition of disaster in the Small Business 

Act to include low or no snowfall amounts, 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 ‘‘Winter Recreation 

5 Small Business Recovery Act of 2024’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF DISASTER. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 3(k)(2) of the Small Busi8 ness Act (15 U.S.C. 632(k)(2)) is amended— 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 5049 IS

1 (1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘and’’ at 

2 the end; 

3 (2) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period 

4 at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

5 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(D) below average snowfall or snow cover.’’. 

7 (b) REGULATIONS.—Not later than 90 days after the 

8 date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the 

9 Small Business Administration, in consultation with the 

10 Director of the National Weather Service, shall promul11 gate rules to implement the amendment made by sub12 section (a). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
No. 65561.

#### Mogens Import Corp. *v.*United States,

protests 60/12029, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

The protests were dismissed.
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

MARTIN FRUTOS, JR.,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2361 GEB PAN P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

On November 3, 2004, plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed November 10, 2004, plaintiff was

directed to either pay the $150.00 filing fee for the action or to file an application to proceed in

forma pauperis. On December 6, 2004, plaintiff filed a response and a further response to the

November 10, 2004 order. In said documents, plaintiff represents that on November 1, 2004, his

father sent to the court by certified mail both the original complaint and a Western Union Money

Order in the amount of $150.00. By these documents, plaintiff sought a stay of these proceedings

until the matter of the lost money order was resolved and he represented, inter alia, that he

intended to seek a refund of $150.00 from Western Union.

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within fifteen days from

the date of this order plaintiff shall inform the court in writing of the status of his request for a

Case 2:04-cv-02361-ALA Document 9 Filed 05/11/06 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

refund from Western Union. Failure to respond to this order will result in a recommendation that

this action be dismissed.

DATED: May 10, 2006.

12

frut2361.ref

Case 2:04-cv-02361-ALA Document 9 Filed 05/11/06 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32
 Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.
 Date:  May 11, 2009
    By:
    /s/ MICHAEL S. DUNLAPName:
    Michael S. DunlapTitle:
    Chairman and Chief Executive OfficerBy:
    /s/ TERRY J. HEIMESName:
    Terry J. HeimesTitle:
    Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-7953

CLARENCE J. PERRY, JR., 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

 v. 

J. P. FULTON, Judge: Norfolk Circuit Court; S. CATHERINE 

DODSON, Commonwealth Attorney Norfolk Circuit Court; WALTER 

B. DALTON, Court-Appointed Attorney Norfolk Circuit Court, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District 

Judge. (2:08-cv-00368-MSD-TEM) 

Submitted: February 26, 2009 Decided: March 6, 2009 

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Clarence J. Perry, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Clarence J. Perry, Jr., appeals the district court’s 

order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985, 1986 (2000) complaint 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2006). We have reviewed the record 

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. See Perry v. Fulton, 

No. 2:08-cv-00368-MSD-TEM (E.D. Va. Aug. 14, 2008). We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before the court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
Before the First Division,

January 9, 1943

No. 47892.

#### Protests 976514-G, etc., of Union Brokerage Co. (Pembina).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Seaboard Lumber Sales Co.*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 161, C. D. 391) the protests claiming that no addition should have been made for planing, tonguing, and/or grooving were sustained.
Acne Abstract Review Form	Reviewer: _________

	Entered: __________

Delete, because article (check one):

☐	did not address management of acne

☐	did not include human data

☐	only addressed chloracne, acne rosacea,  	acne venanta, acne fulminans, acne

necroticans, acne agminata

☐	no original data

☐	article not in English

	Specify language:__________________

Do not go on if any of above are checked

Type of evidence:

☐			controlled trial

☐			cohort study

☐			case-control study

☐			case-series/case-report

☐	review

☐	opinion/editorial

☐	unclear	Study areas addressed (check all that apply):

☐	Medical outcomes

☐	Treatment

☐			Cost

☐			Psychological morbidities

☐			Acne severity

☐			Acne type

☐			Patient characteristics

☐			Source of care

☐			None of the above

	☐	None of the above, but relevant to:

___________________________________________

☐	Unclear, retrieve article

Comments:

________________________________________________

________________________________________________
##### 



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
  1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Interchange Corporation.
 Date: November 11, 2005
    
    /s/ Heath B. ClarkeHeath B. ClarkeChief Executive Officer and Chairman(Principal Executive Officer)/s/ Douglas S. NormanDouglas S. NormanChief Financial Officer and Secretary(Principal Financial Officer)