alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2008281EN.01000302.xml

| 5.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 281/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 281/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5200 — Strabag/Kirchner)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 281/03)

On 15 September 2008, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in German and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5200. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5200. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
No. 48660.

#### Protests 721299-G (F), etc., of P. Alonge & Bro. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

An allowance of 21⁄2 percent in the net weight of cheese stipulated to be similar to that involved in *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706) and Abstracts 42146 and 48269 was made to compensate for the foreign substances on the outside. It was further stipulated that certain of the cheese consists of Reggiano cheese similar to that the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States, supra.*As to this item the court made an allowance of 1 percent. An allowance of 2 percent was made in the weight of cheese stipulated to be similar in all material respects to the Pálmese or Moliterno cheese the subject of *241
      *Scaramelli*v. *United States, supra.*It was also stipulated that certain other cheese was wrapped in paper or foil, or both, and is the same in all material respects as that the subject of *Kraft Phenix Cheese Corp.*v. *United States*(T. D. 47955). In accordance therewith an allowance for the weight of the paper or foil, or both, was made by the court.
# C_2007297EN.01003404.xml

| 8.12.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/34

---

Order of the President of the Court of 4 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-86/07) (1)

1

(2007/C 297/64)

Language of the case: Italian

Language of the case: Italian

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.

1

---
# Official Journal C 212/2012

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.212.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 212 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5519 July 2012 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.212.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 212

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5519 July 2012

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2012/C 212/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6515 — Arrow Electronics/Altimate Group) (1) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2012/C 212/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6515 — Arrow Electronics/Altimate Group) (1)

1

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2012/C 212/02 | Euro exchange rates | 2 |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2012/C 212/03 | Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries | 3 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2012/C 212/02

Euro exchange rates

2

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2012/C 212/03

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

3

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2012/C 212/04 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6600 — AAEC/Entero/BMC Investments) (1) | 4 |
| | OTHER ACTS |
| | European Commission |
| 2012/C 212/05 | Publication of an application pursuant to Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs | 6 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2012/C 212/04

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6600 — AAEC/Entero/BMC Investments) (1)

4

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

2012/C 212/05

Publication of an application pursuant to Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs

6

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
# **EXHIBIT 99.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, the undersigned certifies that (1) this Quarterly Report of TodhunterInternational, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended December31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (this “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (2) the informationcontained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition of the Company as of December 31, 2002 and its results of operationsfor the  period ended December 31, 2002.

 
|                          |    /s/   Troy Edwards               |   |
|-------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                          | Troy Edwards                                       |
|                          | Chief Financial Officer,  Treasurer and Controller |
|                          |                                               |
|                          |                                               |
| Date:  February 11, 2003 |                                               |

 

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

STEPHANIE SIMPKINS,

Plaintiff,

 Civil Action 2:12-cv-274

v. Judge Gregory L. Frost

 Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 

 

Defendant.

ORDER

Plaintiff, Stephanie Simpkins, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and

1383(c)(3) for review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security 

(“Commissioner”) denying her applications for social security disability insurance benefits and

supplemental security income. This matter is before the Court for consideration of the United

States Magistrate Judge’s July 9, 2013 Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 19.) The

Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court overrule Plaintiff’s Statement of Errors and affirm

the Commissioner’s decision. 

The Report and Recommendation specifically advises the parties that the failure to object

to the Report and Recommendation within fourteen days of the Report results in a “waiver of the

right to de novo review . . . by the District Judge and waiver of the right to appeal the judgment

of the District Court.” (Report and Recommendation 24–25, ECF No. 19.) The time period for

1

Case: 2:12-cv-00274-GLF-EPD Doc #: 20 Filed: 08/02/13 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
filing objections to the Report and Recommendation has expired. Plaintiff has not objected to

the Report and Recommendation. 

The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation. Noting that no objections

have been filed and that the time for filing such objections has expired, the Court ADOPTS the

Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 19), OVERRULES Plaintiff’s Statement of Errors (ECF

No. 12), AFFIRMS the Commissioner’s decision, and DIRECTS the Clerk to terminate this

case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Gregory L. Frost 

GREGORY L. FROST

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case: 2:12-cv-00274-GLF-EPD Doc #: 20 Filed: 08/02/13 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Jump to navigation

            - About
            - Browse Collections
            - Advanced Search
            - Contact

## You are here

- Home  › 
- Browse Collections  › 
- U.S. Government Posters

# Protectors of independence since 1789

                - U.S. Government Posters

## Description

                    -           Title        
                    -  Protectors of independence since 1789 
                    -           Publisher        
                    -  U.S. Customs Service 
                    -           Subjects        
                    -  U.S. Customs Service 
                    -           Subject: Time        
                    -  1980-1990 
                    -           Subject: Place        
                    -  United States 
                    -           Series Title        
                    -  Customs poster series ; 98 (1/88)Customs poster series98. 
                    -           Physical Description        
                    -  164 × 51 cm 
                    -           Number of Pages        
                    -  1 
                    -           Host institution        
                    -  University of Iowa. Libraries. Government Publications 
                    -           Digitization Specifications        
                    -  Scanned with Ideal Contex Magnum G600 54 Plus at 300 ppi, 24-bit color. Archival tiff image available. 
                    -           Rights Management        
                    -  This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. 
                    -           Contact Information        
                    -  Please contact the Government Publications Department at The University of Iowa Libraries: lib-govpub@uiowa.edu 
                    -           Item Type (AAT)        
                    -  Posters 
                    -           Item Type (IMT)        
                    -  jpeg 
                    -           Identifier        
                    -  018282973.jpg 
                    -           OCLC Collection Number        
                    -  429489521 

                - Contact the Libraries
                - Library locations & hours
                - News & Events
                - Help using the Libraries
                - Assistance for people with disabilities
                - Our diversity statement
                - Thank a Librarian
                - Web site/page feedback  OR  general suggestions
                -  

                -  
                - 100 Main Library (LIB)
                - 125 West Washington St.
                - Iowa City, IA 52242-1420
                - 319-335-5299 (Service Desk)
                - ©2020  The University of Iowa
                -
EXHIBIT 13.3







ToLuna Germany GmbH Wilhelm-Leuschner-Straße 41 60329
Frankfurt



To whom it may concern



Frankfurt,
April 19th 2012



CONSENT



This is to confirm that ToLuna Germany GmbH (formerly Ciao Surveys
GmbH) conducted consumer surveys commissioned by SodaStream International Ltd. in the following countries as detailed below:



|Country     |  | Date
        of Survey |  | Number
        of Respondents
|----------- |  | ---------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Australia   |  | December 2011          |  | 440                          
|Belgium     |  | October 2011           |  | 1072                         
|Denmark     |  | October 2011           |  | 515                          
|Finland     |  | October 2011           |  | 1060                         
|France      |  | October 2011           |  | 1002                         
|Germany     |  | October 2011           |  | 1014                         
|NZ          |  | October 2011           |  | 541                          
|Sweden      |  | October 2011           |  | 1018                         
|Switzerland |  | September 2011         |  | 814                          



The survey questions included the following questions:



| | 1. | Do you have or have you ever had a home carbonation system or a similar appliance in your household? (refer to the past 5 years)
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Which make is/was this home carbonation system?
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------



We hereby give our consent to the use of results from the above
surveys in the Annual Report on Form 20-F filed by SodaStream International Ltd. with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission and to the reference in the Annual Report to the name ToLuna Germany GmbH (formerly Ciao Surveys GmbH) in connection
therewith.



We further consent to the incorporation by reference of this
consent, results from the above surveys and references to our name in connection therewith in the registration statement on Form
S-8 (No. 333-170299) of SodaStream International Ltd.



Sincerely,



TOLUNA Germany GmbH (formerly Ciao Surveys GmbH)



|By: | /s/ Stephan Soine             | 
|--- | ----------------------------- | 
|    | Name: Stephan Soine          
|    | Title: Country Manager D-A-CH



| | Toluna Germany GmbH
        Wilbelm-Leuschner-Strasse 41
        60329 Frankfurt am Main | t
        +49 (0) 69 74 22 76 00
        f
        1-49 (0) 69 74 22 76 11
        www.toluna-group.de
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

BENJAMIN HENDRICKS,

Plaintiff,

Civil Action 2:11-cv-00937

v. Judge George C. Smith

Magistrate Judge Deavers

JOHN DESMARAIS, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff’s Objections to the

Magistrate Judge’s Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (ECF No.

40). For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED. The Magistrate

Judge’s Order is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel

is DENIED. (ECF No. 38). 

 The subject Order involves a non-dispositive matter. Thus, the Court applies the “clearly

erroneous” or “contrary to law” standard of review set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

72(a). A Magistrate Judge’s factual finding is “clearly erroneous” only when, after reviewing

the evidence, the court “is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake as been

committed.” United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948). A court will

overturn a Magistrate Judge’s legal conclusions only where those conclusions “contradict or

ignore applicable precepts of law, as found in the Constitution, statutes, or case precedent.” 

Gandee v. Glaser, 785 F.Supp. 684, 686 (S.D. Ohio 1992) (internal quotation marks and citation

omitted). 

Case: 2:11-cv-00937-GCS-EPD Doc #: 43 Filed: 03/20/13 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Order and concludes that it is neither

clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

has held that there is no right to counsel in prisoner civil rights case. Bennett v. Smith, 110 Fed.

App’x 633, 635 (6th Cir. 2004). “The appointment of counsel in a civil proceeding is justified

only be exceptional circumstances.” Id. Thus, exercise of the Court’s statutory authority to

appoint counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) is limited to extraordinary situations. 

Here, Plaintiff contends that extraordinary circumstances exist because prison officials

have “confiscated and ‘lost’ everything” in his possession that would have allowed him to

respond to any dispositive motions Defendants may file in this case. (Obj. 1, ECF No. 40). If

corrections officials have illegally confiscated Plaintiff’s legal papers, it would appear to the

Court that Plaintiff’s remedy can be found within the institutions grievance system. This

situation does not warrant the extraordinary procedure of appointing counsel prior to dispositive

motions. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Order are

OVERRULED. The Magistrate Judge’s Order is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. Plaintiff’s

Motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED. (ECF No. 38). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ George C. Smith 

GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

Case: 2:11-cv-00937-GCS-EPD Doc #: 43 Filed: 03/20/13 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

KENNETH RAY BLUME,

Plaintiff,

 Civil Action 2:11-cv-146

v. JUDGE GREGORY L. FROST

 Magistrate Judge E.A. Preston Deavers

MARY JEAN SUPILANAS, et al., 

Defendants,

ORDER

 This matter is before the Court for consideration of the United States Magistrate Judge’s

October 11, 2011 Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 9.) The Magistrate Judge conducted

an initial screen of Plaintiff’s Complaint as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and

recommended that the Court dismiss this action for failure to assert any claim with an arguable

basis in law over which this Court has subject matter jurisdiction. 

The Report and Recommendation specifically advises Plaintiff that the failure to object to

the Report and Recommendation within fourteen days of the Report results in a “waiver of the

right to de novo review . . . by the District Judge and waiver of the right to appeal the judgment

of the District Court.” (Report and Recommendation 12, ECF No. 9.) The time period for filing

objections to the Report and Recommendation has expired. Plaintiff has not objected to the

Report and Recommendation. 

The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation. Noting that no objections

have been filed and that the time for filing such objections has expired, the Court ADOPTS the

Case: 2:11-cv-00146-GLF-EPD Doc #: 11 Filed: 11/02/11 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Gregory L. Frost 

GREGORY L. FROST

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case: 2:11-cv-00146-GLF-EPD Doc #: 11 Filed: 11/02/11 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

AARON D. YOUNKER, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 2:11-cv-00749 

 Judge Gregory L. Frost 

v. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers 

OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL 

CENTER, et al., 

 Defendants.

ORDER

 This matter is before the Court for consideration of the United States Magistrate Judge’s 

Report and Recommendation filed on June 25, 2013. (ECF No. 109.) The Magistrate Judge 

recommended that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 90) be granted for 

failure to exhaust administrative remedies and that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed without 

prejudice. 

 The Report and Recommendation specifically advises Plaintiff that the failure to object to 

the Report and Recommendation within fourteen days of the Report results in a “waiver of the 

right to de novo review by the District Judge and waiver of the right to appeal the judgment of 

the District Court.” (Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 109 at PageID# 517.) See, e.g., 

Pfahler v. Nat’l Latex Prod. Co., 517 F.3d 816, 829 (6th Cir. 2007). The time period for filing 

objections to the Report and Recommendation has expired. Plaintiff has not objected to the 

Report and Recommendation. 

 The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation. Noting that no objections 

have been filed and that the time for filing such objections has expired, the Court ADOPTS the 

Case: 2:11-cv-00749-GLF-EPD Doc #: 111 Filed: 07/16/13 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2 

Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for 

Summary Judgment (ECF No. 90) and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE.

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 /s/ Gregory L. Frost 

 GREGORY L. FROST 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case: 2:11-cv-00749-GLF-EPD Doc #: 111 Filed: 07/16/13 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
(Reap. Dec. 9255)

#### The Hipage Company, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 1639; 2015.

(Decided November 20, 1958)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*George Cochran Douh,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

These two appeals for reappraisement are before me for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> It is stipulated and agreed, subject to the approval of the Court, that at the time of exportation of the merchandise involved herein, such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the *580country from winch exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States at the following prices:

> In R58/22663 merchandise invoiced as 60051.2 lbs. B. N. S. type 66 Nylon substandard staple fibre, and in R58/22664 merchandise invoiced as 64975.6 lbs. 15 denier 4 fils. Type 66 Nylon Staple Fibre, the export value is $.64 per pound, plus 2%, less non-dutiable charges.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that there was no higher foreign value for the merchandise herein at the time of exportation thereof.

On the agreed facts, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question, as hereinabove identified, is export value, as defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and hold that such statutory value for the said items is $0.64 per pound, plus 2 per centum, less nondutiable charges.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Exhibit No. 32.2




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 Texas Pacific Land Trust (the “Trust”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), David M. Peterson, Chief Financial Officer of the Trust, certifies, to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




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




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




TEXAS PACIFIC LAND TRUST(Registrant)Date:  May 5, 2011
By:
/s/ David M. PetersonDavid M. Peterson, Assistant General Agent and Chief Financial Officer