alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1








CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the filing of Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of The Howard Hughes Corporation, a Delaware Corporation (the “Company”), for the period ended December 31, 2018, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned officers, in their capacity as officers, of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 periods expressed in the report.

/s/ David R. WeinrebDavid R. WeinrebChief Executive OfficerMarch 15, 2019





/s/ David R. O’ReillyDavid R. O’ReillyChief Financial OfficerMarch 15, 2019
No. 44150.

#### Protests 907232-G, etc., of Taiyo Trading Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Butler*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 120, C. D. 303) the Rockingham-ware in question was held dutiable at 25 percent under paragraph 210 as claimed.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8868 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.8868

                     One Hundred Eighteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
         the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-four

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
   609 Portsmouth Avenue in Greenland, New Hampshire, as the ``Chief 
                 Michael Maloney Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CHIEF MICHAEL MALONEY POST OFFICE BUILDING.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 609 Portsmouth Avenue in Greenland, New Hampshire, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Chief Michael Maloney Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Chief 
Michael Maloney Post Office Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
**Exhibit
        10.9**
 
 NEC
        Partnership
 101
        High
        Street
 Westwood,
        MA 02090
 
 October
        13, 2005
 
 Chinmay
        Chatterjee, CEO
 Integrated
        Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
 310
        Authority Drive
 Fitchburg,
        MA 01420
 
 Re:
              Amendment
                  to First Amendment and Restated Patent License Agreement (the
                  “**License**”)
 
 Dear
        Mr.
        Chatterjee:
 
 On
        behalf
        of NEC Partnership, the Licensor under the above-referenced License, we hereby
        agree to modify section 5.4 of the License:
 
 1.
              by
                  waiving any right to royalties in any year in which the sales of
                  Licensed
                  Products is less than $5 million; and2.
              by
                  waiving any right to royalties in any year in which the EBITDA
                  of the
                  Company from the sale of Licensed Products is less than 12.5% of
                  the
                  Company’s revenues from the sale of Licensed
                  Products.
  To
        indicate the acceptance of Integrated Pharmaceuticals Inc. to these revised
        terms, please sign the acceptance line below.
 
 Very
        truly yours,
 
 NEC
        PARTNERSHIP
 */s/
        Edward D. Furtado* *____*
 Edward
        D.
        Furtado, Partner
  
 ACCEPTED
        AND AGREED:
 
 INTEGRATED
        PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
 */s/
        Chinmay Chatterjee* ____
 By:
        Chinmay Chatterjee
 Its:
        CEO
No. 41907.

#### Protests 811768-G, etc., of F. W. Myers & Co., Inc., et al. (Ogdensburg, etc.).

Opinion by

First Division.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Arkmael Ray Sales, :

Plaintiff : Civil Action 2:11-cv-00239

v. : Judge Marbley

Mr. K. Smith, et al., : Magistrate Judge Abel

Defendants

:

ORDER

Plaintiff Arkmael Ray Sales, a state prisoner, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. §

1983. This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Abel's June 22, 2012 Report

and Recommendation recommending that plaintiff's June 7, 2012 motion for the

issuance of an injunction (doc. 45) and June 11, 2012 supplemental motion for injunctive

relief (doc. 46) be denied. No objections have been filed.

Upon de novo review in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B),

the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and DENIES plaintiff Arkmael

Ray Sales' June 7, 2012 motion for the issuance of an injunction (doc. 45) and June 11,

2012 supplemental motion for injunctive relief (doc. 46). 

 s/Algenon L. Marbley 

Algenon L. Marbley

United States District Judge 

Case: 2:11-cv-00239-ALM-MRA Doc #: 59 Filed: 08/28/12 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Exhibit 8.1

List of Consolidated Entities of E-Commerce China Dangdang Inc.*



|                                                    |  |                 |  |                                                                                                                                                                         
|--------------------------------------------------- |  | --------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                    |  | Jurisdiction of |  | Relationship with the                                                                                                                                                   
|Name                                                |  | incorporation   |  | Registrant                                                                                                                                                              
|                                                    |  |                
|Beijing Dangdang Information Technology Co., Ltd.   |  | PRC             |  | Wholly-owned subsidiary                                                                                                                                                 
|                                                    |  |                
|Wuxi Dangdang Information Technology Co., Ltd.      |  | PRC             |  | Subsidiary 99% owned by Beijing Dangdang Information Technology Co., Ltd. and 1% owned by Peggy Yu Yu and Guoqing Li through Beijing Dangdang Kewen E-Commerce Co.,
Ltd.
|                                                    |  |                
|Beijing Dangdang Kewen E-Commerce Co., Ltd.         |  | PRC             |  | Variable interest entity                                                                                                                                                
|                                                    |  |                
|Wuxi Dangdang Kewen E-Commerce Co., Ltd.            |  | PRC             |  | Variable interest entity                                                                                                                                                
|                                                    |  |                
|Dangdang Information Technology (Tianjin) Co., Ltd. |  | PRC             |  | Subsidiary 99% owned by Beijing Dangdang Information Technology Co., Ltd. and 1% owned by Peggy Yu Yu and Guoqing Li through Beijing Dangdang Kewen E-Commerce Co.,
Ltd.



|(1)* | Other consolidated entities of E-Commerce China Dangdang Inc. have been omitted from this list since, considered in the aggregate as a single entity, they would not
constitute a significant subsidiary.
|---- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GERRARD D. JONES,

Appellant,

v.

ANTONIO M. HUDSON; 

TORREY M. JOHNSON; ETC., 

STATE OF FLORIDA, ET AL.,

Appellees.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-2377

_____________________________/

Opinion filed October 7, 2015.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Jefferson County.

Karen A. Gievers, Judge.

Gerrard D. Jones, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Kathleen C. Hagan, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee, State of Florida.

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED.

LEWIS, SWANSON, and WINOKUR, JJ., CONCUR.
Exhibit 32.2

Registrant (Commission File Number 333-110029):

Broder Bros., Co.

Six Neshaminy Interplex, 6thFloor

Trevose, Pennsylvania 19053

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 Broder Bros., Co. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 29, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Martin J. Matthews, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 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 Broder Bros., Co.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

November 13, 2007



BRODER BROS., CO.By:

/s/ MARTIN J. MATTHEWSMartin J. MatthewsChief Financial Officer
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8757 

To prohibit the use of Federal funds to support cell-cultured meat, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 14, 2024 

Mr. DAVIDSON (for himself, Mr. MASSIE, Ms. HAGEMAN, Mr. HERN, Mr. 

STEUBE, Mr. BAIRD, Mr. ROSENDALE, Mr. JACKSON of Texas, and Mr. 

SELF) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To prohibit the use of Federal funds to support cell-cultured 

meat, 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 ‘‘Right to Eat Authentic 

5 and Legitimate Meat Act of 2024’’ or the ‘‘REAL Meat 

6 Act of 2024’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8757 IH

1 SEC. 2. NO FEDERAL FUNDS SUPPORTING CELL-CULTURED 

2 MEAT. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subsection (b), no Fed4 eral funds may be used to support, directly or indirectly, 

5 the production, advancement, or enhancement of cell-cul6 tured meat, including through— 

7 (1) conducting or supporting research on cell8 cultured meat; 

9 (2) supporting meatpacking plants, organiza10 tions, or groups relating to cell-cultured meat; 

11 (3) allowing for the receipt of any assistance or 

12 other benefit under a program administered by the 

13 Secretary of Agriculture for any product that in14 cludes as an ingredient cell-cultured meat; and 

15 (4) the promotion and advertisement of cell-cul16 tured meat. 

17 (b) NASA EXEMPTION.—The prohibition described 

18 in subsection (a) shall not apply to Federal funds of the 

19 National Aeronautics and Space Administration used to 

20 support, directly or indirectly, the production, advance21 ment, or enhancement of cell-cultured meat that is in22 tended for off-planet consumption. 

23 (c) CELL-CULTURED MEAT DEFINED.—In this sec24 tion, the term ‘‘cell-cultured meat’’ means meat sourced 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 8757 IH

1 from cells of animals and artificially produced in a labora2 tory. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
#### Weil Bros. Textiles, Inc. *v.*United States

No. 7520.

Entry No. 845299/2.

Invoice dated Vichte, Belgium, April 28, 1939.

Certified April 29, 3939.

Entered at New York, N. Y., May 16, 1939.

(Decided January 23, 1948)

*Tompkins & Tompkins (J. Stuart Tompkins*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Kincheloe, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the attorneys for the respec-iive parties, subject to the approval of the court, as follows:

> (1) that the merchandise, cotton rugs from Belgium, and the issues involved in Reappraisement Appeal 165962-A 02295 are the same in all material respects as the merchandise and the issues which were passed uponJin the case of *United States*v. *Stephen Rug Mills, Inc.,*Reappraisement 331005-A, etc., Reap. Dec. 6283, wherein it was held that there was no foreign value for the merchandise; that export value was the proper basis for determining dutiable value, and that the export values for the merchandise were the entered values.

> (2) that the record in said case, Reappraisements 131005-A, etc. Reap. Dec. 6283, may be and hereby is received in evidence as a part of the record in this case.

> (3) That the prices at the time of exportation of the merchandise in suit to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, plus, when not included in such price, 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 ship*361ment to the United States, are the appraised values less the amounts added on entry because of advances made by the appraiser in other cases then pending on appeal for reappraisement.

> (4) That Reappraisement Appeal 165962-A 02295 is hereby submitted for decision upon this stipulation. ■

On tbe agreed facts I find tbe export value, as tbat value is defined in section 402 (d) of tbe Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for tbe determination of tbe value of tbe merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less tbe amounts added on entry because of advances made by tbe appraiser in other cases then pending on appeal for reappraisement.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
## MATERIALS NOT INCLUDED IN

AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE (AD) DOCKET

FAA

- 2015

- 3970

Docket Number

2015

- SW

- 006

- AD

Directorate Identifier

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in DMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket

Airbus Helico pters Service Bulletin No. EC130

- 53

- 029, Revision 0, dated February 20,

2015

.



### MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region

Rules Docket 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N

- 321 Fort Worth, Texas 761 7 7

DU RING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

GOPAL K. SATTINENI, : 

 : 

 : 

 Plaintiff, : Case No. 2:10-CV-01046 

 : 

 v. : JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY 

 : 

 : 

JANET NAPOLITANO, Secretary, : 

Department of Homeland Security, et al., : 

 : Magistrate Judge Mark Abel 

 : 

 : 

 Defendants. : 

ORDER GRANTING DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION

 This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Jurisdiction 

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) filed by Defendants Janet Napolitano, Alejandro Mayorkas, 

and F. Gerard Heinauer (“Defendants”). (Dkt. 20.) Plaintiff has not filed a response to 

Defendants’ Motion. For the reasons set forth herein, the Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED. 

Plaintiff Gopal Sattineni, a citizen of India, brought suit requesting this Court to find 

jurisdiction and adjudicate his then-pending Application to Adjust Status based on Immigration 

Petition for alien Worker (Form I-485) (“Application”), filed with the United States Citizenship 

and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) Texas Service Center on July 5, 2007, and subsequently 

transferred to the Nebraska Service Center. Alternatively, Plaintiff sought to compel Defendants 

to make a determination on the Application because Defendants had unreasonably delayed in 

adjudicating it, thus effectively depriving Plaintiff of the benefit of becoming a permanent 

resident of the United States. 

On July 20, 2011, the USCIS issued its decision on Plaintiff’s Application, denying it for 

Plaintiff’s failure to meet the statutory requirements for the requested adjustment of immigration 

Case: 2:10-cv-01046-ALM-MRA Doc #: 21 Filed: 02/07/12 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
-2-

status. (Dkt. 20-1, Exh. A.) Defendants now move to dismiss the Complaint for lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction in light of the USCIS’s decision, as no further case or controversy exists. See 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). The Court agrees that Plaintiff has received his requested relief in the 

form of adjudication on his Application by the USCIS, which is further confirmed by his failure 

to submit a response to Defendant’s motion to dismiss. 

Plaintiff’s action in this Court is therefore moot, and Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for 

Lack of Jurisdiction is GRANTED. The Complaint is accordingly DISMISSED, with 

prejudice. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/Algenon L. Marbley 

 Algenon L. Marbley 

DATED: February 7, 2011 

Case: 2:10-cv-01046-ALM-MRA Doc #: 21 Filed: 02/07/12 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
# C_2007235EN.01002301.xml

| 6.10.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/23

---

Action brought on 7 August 2007 — Nölle v OHIM — Viña Carta Vieja (Puzzle)

(Case T-303/07)

(2007/C 235/42)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Jürgen Nölle (Rheinberg, Germany) (represented by: J. Reinartz, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Viña Carta Vieja S.A.

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Form of order sought

| — | Reject in its entirety the opposition of 24 February 2005 brought by Viña Carta Vieja S.A. against the trade mark application made by the applicant on 20 February 2004 in relation to the word mark ‘Puzzle’, and in so doing annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 5 June 2007 in Case R 911/2006-2 and the decision of the Opposition Division of 29 June 2006 No B 802 340; |
| --- | --- |

—

Reject in its entirety the opposition of 24 February 2005 brought by Viña Carta Vieja S.A. against the trade mark application made by the applicant on 20 February 2004 in relation to the word mark ‘Puzzle’, and in so doing annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 5 June 2007 in Case R 911/2006-2 and the decision of the Opposition Division of 29 June 2006 No B 802 340;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings including the costs incurred by any intervening party. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings including the costs incurred by any intervening party.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The Applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Puzzle’ for goods in classes 16, 32 and 33 (Application No 3 674 651).

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Viña Carta Vieja S.A.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: In particular the word mark ‘MONKEY PUZZLE’ for goods in class 33 (Community trade mark No 3 238 144).

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: partial grant of the opposition.

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division, to the extent that it granted the opposition for goods in class 32.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), because there is no likelihood of confusion between the opposing trade marks.

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

1

---
Exhibit 32.2

Registrant (Commission File Number 333-110029):

Broder Bros., Co.

Six Neshaminy Interplex, 6thFloor

Trevose, Pennsylvania 19053

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 Broder Bros., Co. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 27, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Martin J. Matthews, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 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 Broder Bros., Co.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

November 7, 2008



BRODER BROS., CO.By:

/s/    MARTIN J.
MATTHEWSMartin J. Matthews Chief Financial Officer