alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JOSLYN MFG. AND SUPPLY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 82-1634.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Dec. 13, 1983.

Before CUMMINGS, Chief Judge, ESCH-BACH, Circuit Judge, and SWYGERT, Senior Circuit Judge.

ORDER

In *Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Joslyn Manufacturing and Supply Co.,*706 F.2d 1469 (7th Cir.1983), this Court affirmed a judgment of the district court for the Northern District of Illinois, 524 F.Supp. 1141 (N.D.Ill.1981). We held that an employer does not violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e *et seq.,*as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k) (1981), by not providing male employees the same insurance benefits when their wives are hospitalized because of pregnancy as it presently provides them when their wives are hospitalized because of injury or illness. Subsequently, the Supreme Court decided that such a plan does violate Title VII 'as amended. *Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity*Commission, - U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 2622, 77 L.Ed.2d 89 (1983). Consequently, we hereby VACATE our previous decision and REMAND the cause to the district court for further proceedings in light of the Supreme Court’s *Newport News*decision.
No. 52331.

protest 969279-G (San Francisco).

#### Fung Chong & Co. *v.*United States,

*320Opinion by

Cline, J.

Lily bulbs stipulated to be the same in all material respects as the bak hop the subject of *Oy Wo Tong Co.*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 70, C. D. 372) were held entitled to free entry under paragraph 1669 as crude, drugs. Chinese wiue stipulated to be the same as that the subject of *Wing Duck Co.*v. *United States*(6 Cust. Ct. 133, C. D. 446) was held exempt from assessment under the Liquor Taxing Act of 1934, as an alcoholic medicinal preparation. The protests were sustained to this extent.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

Gene Hodges, Chief Executive Officer
of Websense, Inc., hereby certifies pursuant to the requirement 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. Section 1350) that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | 1. | The Annual Report on Form 10-K of Websense, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Websense, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2009 fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Websense, Inc. for the period covered by the Annual Report.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: February 25, 2010

By:

/s/    GENE
HODGESGene HodgesChief Executive Officer




|* | A signed original of this written statement has been provided to Websense, Inc. and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request. This written statement accompanies the Form 10-K to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of
Websense, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
|- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before the Second Division,

September 14, 1944

No. 49713.

#### Protest 104046-K of Phelps Dodge Refining Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

At the hearing the appraiser’s report and the collector’s letter were received in evidence. In accordance with agreement of counsel and the concession of the Government counsel and the appraiser that the merchandise herein would be covered by T. D. 50585 as nonferrous metal scrap *287and therefore entitled to free entry, the court held the merchandise in question not subject to tax imposed.
No. 59035.

protest 246976-K (New York).

#### Hudson Shipping Co., Inc. *v.*United States,
Exhibit 32



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 Fruit Of The Loom Unsecured Creditors Trust (the Trust) on Form 10-Q for the period ended January 31, 2004 as furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the Report), I, W. Edward Clingman, Jr., a principal of Clingman & Hanger Management Associates, LLC, Trust Administrator of the Trust, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:



|1) |  | The Report fully complies, to the extent applicable, 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 Trust.
|-- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: March 15, 2004



By:

CLINGMAN & HANGER MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES, LLC as Trust Administrator of the Fruit Of The Loom Unsecured Creditors Trust/S/    W. EDWARD CLINGMAN,
JR.W. Edward Clingman, Jr., Principal
#### Gerald Jones et al., Respondents, v Allstate Insurance Company, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 176]

—In an action for a *597judgment declaring the existence of certain automobile insurance coverage, the defendant Allstate Insurance Company appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Hickman, J.), dated October 14, 1994, which declared that the plaintiffs were covered by a policy of automobile insurance issued by the defendant concerning an accident which occurred on January 21, 1990.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, and it is declared that the plaintiffs are not entitled to insurance coverage from the defendant in connection with the accident which occurred on January 21, 1990.

At the hearing held before the Supreme Court, the defendant Allstate Insurance Company (hereinafter Allstate) adduced competent, credible evidence that it effectively cancelled the policy of insurance covering the plaintiffs’ 1987 Oldsmobile as of September 4, 1988. Through the testimony of two knowledgeable employees, Allstate introduced into evidence a copy of the notice of cancellation it sent to the plaintiffs on August 17, 1988, along with a properly endorsed postal service certificate of mailing, both generated and retained in the ordinary course of business. Supported by the testimony of the two Allstate employees as to routine cancellation notice mailing procedures, these documents constitute conclusive proof of compliance with the mailing requirements of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313 (1) (a) and thus Allstate’s termination of the policy for non-payment of premiums was efficacious *(see,*Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313 [1] [b]; *see also, Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Morales,*207 AD2d 546; *Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Cherian,*202 AD2d 434; *Diaz v Great Am. Ins. Co.,*109 AD2d 775). Moreover, the plaintiffs acknowledged that during the approximate 17-month period between the cancellation of the policy and the one car accident in January 1990, they paid no premiums to Allstate and never renewed their insurance coverage with Allstate. Therefore, the plaintiffs’ mere denials of receipt of the notice of cancellation are unpersuasive, and are not rendered otherwise by their proffered evidence that the lienholders of the two cars owned by the plaintiffs which were previously insured by Allstate, likewise denied receiving notices of cancellation *(see, Matter of T. J. Gulf v New York State Tax Commn.,*124 AD2d 314).

We have reviewed the plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Krausman, JJ., concur.
No. 50109.

#### Protest 69140-K of B. R. Anderson & Co. (Seattle).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
Exhibit 99

                            Certification Pursuant to
                             18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
                                   Adopted by
                  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection  with the Annual  Report of PATRIOT  NATIONAL  BANCORP,  INC. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-KSB for the period ended  December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Angelo  De Caro,  Chief  Executive  Officer,  and  Robert  F.  O'Connell,  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 results of operation of
          the Company.



                                           /s/ Angelo De Caro
                                           ---------------------------------
                                           Angelo De Caro,
                                           Chief Executive Officer


                                           /s/ Robert F. O'Connell
                                           ---------------------------------
                                           Robert F. O'Connell,
                                           Chief Financial Officer





March 28, 2003
EX-32.1

Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

INFe- Human Resources, Inc. 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 amended quarterly report of INFe- Human Resources, Inc.
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending August 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Arthur
Viola, Chief Executive Officer of INFe- Human Resources, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 results of operations of INFe-Human
    Resources, Inc.

/s/    ARTHUR VIOLA
--------------------
       Arthur Viola      Chief Executive Officer         October 14, 2004
                         Sole Director
                         and Chief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

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 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code), I, Michael J. Ricketts, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Cano Petroleum, Inc. (the “Company”), certify that the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2010 (the “Form 10-Q”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Date:      February 14,   2011 | /s/   Michael J. Ricketts                           |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|                                                              |                                                |
|                                                              | Michael   J. Ricketts                               |
|                                                              | Senior   Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
December 30, 1941

No. 46770.

#### Petitions 5888-R, etc., of E. H. Corrigan.

Motion of Government for rehearing denied.
(Reap. Dec. 8552)

#### Kingston Chemical Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 749422; 851391.

(Decided February 21, 1956)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the merchandise in the above enumerated Appeals to Reappraisement herein consists of Para Amino Salicylic Sodium dutiable under the provisions of Paragraph 27 of the Tariff Act of 1930, wherein Paragraph 27 Sub-division (c) provides that “the ad valorem rates provided in this paragraph shall be based upon the American selling price (as defined in Sub-division (g) of Section 402, Title IV) of any similar competitive article manufactured or produced in the United States”.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that at the time of exportation of the merchandise herein the American selling price of an article manufactured or produced in the United States which is similar and competitive to the merchandise embraced in the invoices covered by this stipulation, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for delivery, at which such article is freely offered for sale for domestic consumption to all purchasers in the principal market of the United States, in the ordinary course of trade and in the usual wholesale quantities in such market is as follows:

> $2.70 per pound less 1% cash discount, net packed, and that such value is the value of the merchandise herein and that there was no higher value.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the Appeals to Reap-praisement covered hereby may be submitted upon this stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the American selling price, as that value is defined in section 402 (g) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by-section 8 of the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such value was $2.70 per pound, less 1 per centum cash discount, net packed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
No. 42934.

#### Protest 459966-G of Wilbur Ellis Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
No. 45021.

#### Protest 961687-G of Sun On Chong & Co. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

It was stipulated that the apricot kernels in question, are similar to those the subject of Abstract 34104. The claim at 3 cents per pound under paragraph 762 was therefore sustained.
# C_2007251EN.01000601.xml

| 26.10.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 251/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/6

---

Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/M.3848 — Sea-Invest/EMO-EKOM

(Pursuant to Articles 15 and 16 of Commission Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings — OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21)

(Pursuant to Articles 15 and 16 of Commission Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings — OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21)

(2007/C 251/07)

On 24 February 2006, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (the Merger Regulation) by which the undertaking Sea-Invest N.V. acquires, by way of purchase of shares, joint control of the undertakings Europees Massagoed-Overslagsbedrijf B.V. and Erts- en Kolen Overslagsbedrijf B.V. (EMO-EKOM). Following the transaction EMO-EKOM will be jointly controlled by Sea-Invest N.V., Thyssen-Krupp Veerhaven B.V., H.E.S. Beheer N.V. and Manufrance B.V.

By decision dated 31 March 2006, the Commission found that the transaction raised serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common market and the functioning with the EEA Agreement. Accordingly, the Commission initiated proceedings in accordance with Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation. Subsequently, on 3 May 2006, the Commission decided to extend the procedure with 20 working days pursuant to Article 10(3)(2) of the Merger Regulation.

On 4 April 2006, Sea-Invest was upon request granted access to certain ‘key documents’ in the Commission's file in accordance with Chapter 7.2 of the Commission Note on ‘Best Practices on the conduct of EC Merger control proceedings’.

Following an in-depth market investigation the relevant Commission services considered that the serious doubts had been removed and that the proposed transaction would not significantly impede effective competition in the common market or a substantial part of it. Accordingly, no Statement of Objections was sent to the parties.

No queries or submission have been made to the Hearing Officer by the parties or any other third party. The case does not call for any particular comments as regards the right to be heard.

Brussels, 26 July 2006.

Serge DURANDE

---
No. 65537.

#### Venetianaire Corp. of Texas *v.*United States,

protest 59/31764 (Galveston).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that the merchandise contained in bales 231 to 245, inclusive, on entry 9045-H, described as bamboo valances with cotton tape, and that contained in bales 6008 to 6214, inclusive, on entry 8819-H, described as natural higo matchstick valances, consists of valances similar in all material respects to those the subject of *D. N. & E. Walter & Co. et al.*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 26, C.D. 2098), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 63156.

#### Air Clearance Assn., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 58/19279 (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.
# C_2007194EN.01001901.xml

| 22.8.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 194/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 194/19

---

Publication, pursuant to Article 12(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs, concerning a cancellation application

(2007/C 194/13)

This publication confers the right to object the cancellation application pursuant to Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 (1). Statements of objections must reach the Commission within six months from the date of this publication.

1

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 510/2006

Cancellation request according to Article 12(2)

‘BAD NIEDERNAUER QUELLE’

EC No: DE/PDO/017/0743/23.7.2003

ImagePGI ImagePDO

1.   Registered name proposed for cancellation:

‘Bad Niedernauer Quelle’

2.   Member State or Third Country:

Germany

3.   Type of product:

Natural mineral water

4.   Person or body making request for cancellation:

| Name: | Bad Niedernauer Römerquelle |
| --- | --- |
| Address: | D-72108 Bad Niedernau |

Name:

Bad Niedernauer Römerquelle

Address:

D-72108 Bad Niedernau

Nature of legitimate interest in making the request:

The applicant is the only producer of the protected name.

5.   Reasons for Cancellation:

The applicant has decided that it no longer wants to use the name as a protected designation of origin and therefore no longer wants to pay the control costs.

---

(1)  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

1

---
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION OF
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  Exchange Act  , , Company
 1.
    
    The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009, to which this
Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Periodic Report), fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
 2.
    
    The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 In Witness Whereof
 /s/ Philip E. Soran
    
    /s/ John R. JuddPhilip E. Soran
    
    John R. JuddChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
    
    Chief Financial Officer
#### Lois Webster et al., Appellants, v Thomas Smith, Respondent.

[635 NYS2d 561]

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in decision at Supreme Court, Shaheen, J. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Shaheen, J.—Assumption of Risk.) Present—Lawton, J. P., Wesley, Balio, Davis and Boehm, JJ.
#### C.I.T. Leasing Corporation, Respondent, v Pitney Bowes Credit Corporation, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 487]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered March 9, 1995, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment and granted plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing defendant’s counterclaim for attorneys’ fees, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court properly determined that summary judgment dismissal of plaintiff’s causes of action for breach of contract and, alternatively, reformation, was precluded by the presence of triable issues of material fact. The parties’ conflicting affidavits raised issues as to whether the Guaranty Agreement actually represented the parties’ intent and understanding with respect to any indemnity with respect to the "Break Funding/Early Termination Option”, and whether that indemnity was omitted as the result of mutual mistake *(see, Chimart Assocs. v Paul,*66 NY2d 570, 573; *Consolidated Edison Co. v General Acc. Ins. Co.,*204 AD2d 164). The IAS Court properly declined to dismiss the third cause of action seeking recovery of costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, *212incurred in seeking to enforce defendant’s alleged indemnity obligation under the Break Funding/Early Termination Option, which were expressly provided for in section 1 (f) of the parties’ Guaranty Agreement *(Matter of A.G. Ship Maintenance Corp. v Lezak,*69 NY2d 1, 5; *Breed, Abbott & Morgan v Hulko,*139 AD2d 71, 73, *affd*74 NY2d 686). Defendant’s counterclaim seeking attorneys’ fees for alleged "baseless” litigation was properly dismissed as there is no legal authority for such relief *(Matter of A.G. Ship Maintenance Corp. v Lezak, supra-, Curiano v Suozzi,*63 NY2d 113, 116), and, in any event, *this litigation*cannot *be*deemed baseless. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Ross, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.