alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**
Certification of the Principal Executive OfficerPursuant to 15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)(Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

I, Glenn F. Tilton, the Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officerof United Air Lines, Inc. (the "Company"), certify that:(1)     I have reviewed this quarterly reporton Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September         30, 2004 of the Company;
(2)     Based on my knowledge, this report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material          fact or omitto state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light         of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with         respect to the periodcovered by this report;
(3)     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements,and other financial information          included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results         of operations andcash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in         this report;
(4)     The Company's other certifying officer andI are responsible for establishing and          maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules          13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the Company and we have: (a)     Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such         disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to         ensure that materialinformation relating to the Company, including its         consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those         entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;
(b)     Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company'sdisclosure controls and         procedures and presentedin this report our conclusions about the         effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the         period covered bythis report based on such evaluation; and
(c)     Disclosed in this report any change in theCompany's internal control over         financial reportingthat occurred during the Company's most recent fiscal         quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially         affect, the Company'sinternal control over financial reporting; and (5)     The Company's other certifying officer andI have disclosed, based on our most recent         evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the Company's auditors and the         audit committee ofCompany's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent         functions): (a)     All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or         operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably         likely to adverselyaffect the Company's ability to record, process,         summarize and reportfinancial information; and
(b)     Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other         employees who havea significant role in the Company's internal control         over financial reporting.   /s/ Glenn F. TiltonGlenn F. TiltonUnited Air Lines, Inc.Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
November 8, 2004    

**
Dear Members ofthe Arizona Business Community:

Thank you for your interest in Arizona’s plan to address regional haze in protected national parks and

wilderness areas as required under the Clean Air Act (CAA). We are responding to your letter dated July

23, 2012, requesting an extension ofthe public comment period and additional hearings.

We agree to extend the deadline for public comment and increase the number ofpublic hearings to

provide additional opportunity for review and comment on the regional haze plan for three power plants

in Arizona (Apache Generating Station, Cholla Power Plant and Coronado Generating Station.)We will conduct two additional public hearings. On August 14, 2012, we will hold an additional hearingin Holbrook, Arizona at Holbrook High School, George Gardner Performing Arts Center, 455 N. 8th

Ave. from 6-8 PM. Note that EPA has changed the location from Northland Pioneer College in order to

accommodate more people. On August 15, 2012, we will hold a hearing in Benson, Arizona, at CochiseCollege (Rooms 113 and 115) from 6-8 PM. These two hearings are in addition to the public hearing

held in Phoenix on July 31, 2012.

We have extended the public comment period by two weeks, for a total of 60 days ending on September

18, 2012, but are unable to provide the 90 days that you requested. We are on an expedited schedule to

review and respond to all public comments and to prepare a final determination by the consent decree

deadline ofNovember 15, 2012. We did request more time from the litigants but were unsuccessful.We look forward to working with you and other interested parties to address regional haze affecting

national parks and wilderness areas. If you have further questions, please contact Colleen McKaughan,Associate Director, at 520-498-0118.

Sincerely,

1ebahJordan

Director, Air Division

Printed on Recycled Paper
# C_2017213EN.01002701.xml

| 3.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 11 May 2017 — Barqawi v Council

(Case T-303/15) (1)

1

((Common Foreign and Security Policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Syria - Freezing of funds - Manifest error of assessment))

(2017/C 213/35)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ahmad Barqawi (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: J.-P. Buyle and L. Cloquet, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by: G. Étienne and N. Rouam, subsequently by: G. Étienne and S. Kyriakopoulou, and finally by: S. Kyriakopoulou, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/383 of 6 March 2015 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2015 L 64, p. 41) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/375 of 6 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2015 L 64, p. 10), insofar as the applicant’s name has been entered in the list of persons and entities to which the restrictive measures apply.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/383 of 6 March 2015 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/375 of 6 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria inasmuch as they relate to Mr Ahmad Barqawi; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/383 of 6 March 2015 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/375 of 6 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria inasmuch as they relate to Mr Ahmad Barqawi;

| 2. | Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Barqawi. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Barqawi.

---

(1)  OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.

1

---
Before the First Division,

April 24, 1951

No. 55478.

#### American Oak Preserving Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 157238-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
# C_2015406EN.01004602.xml

| 7.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 406/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/46

---

Action brought on 12 October 2015 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-132/15)

(2015/C 406/49)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the Commission’s decision to apply the medical reservation clause in Article 32 of the CEOS, retroactively, with effect from the date of entry into service of the applicant with the Commission and to suspend the invalidity and death insurance and, in addition, annulment of the decision to bar the applicant from being recruited by the Commission for a period of six years to run from the date on which her last contract ended.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decisions of the AECE concerning, firstly, the retroactive application to the applicant of the medical reservation in Article 32 of the CEOS and the suspension of the invalidity and death insurance and, secondly, the bar on the Commission’s recruiting the applicant for a period of six years; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decisions of the AECE concerning, firstly, the retroactive application to the applicant of the medical reservation in Article 32 of the CEOS and the suspension of the invalidity and death insurance and, secondly, the bar on the Commission’s recruiting the applicant for a period of six years;

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
# C_2015146EN.01005201.xml

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/52

---

Action brought on 24 February 2015 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-35/15)

(2015/C 146/73)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: C. Huglo, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision not to take further action on the request for assistance made by the applicant even though he was under investigation for misappropriation of funds accruing to the Community budget.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | annul the decision of the appointing authority of 21 November 2014, received on 3 December 2014, rejecting complaint No R/865/14 submitted by the applicant on 5 August 2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the appointing authority of 21 November 2014, received on 3 December 2014, rejecting complaint No R/865/14 submitted by the applicant on 5 August 2014;

| — | order the European Commission to pay the sum of EUR 17  242,51, to be adjusted if necessary; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the sum of EUR 17  242,51, to be adjusted if necessary;

| — | order the European Commission to pay the sum of EUR 3  000 in respect of the non-recoverable costs, to be adjusted if necessary, and to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the sum of EUR 3  000 in respect of the non-recoverable costs, to be adjusted if necessary, and to pay all the costs.

---
No. 41959.

#### Protests 949913-G, etc., of New York Merchandise Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of paperweights, marcel irons, banks, tooth brush holder, shaving brush holder, and utility boxes chiefly used in the household for utilitarian purposes. The claim at 40 percent under paragraph 339 was therefore sustained. *Rice*v. *United States*(T. D. 49373), *Dow*v. *United States*(21 C. C. P. A. 282, T. D. 46816), Abstract 38680, and *Woolworth*v. *United States*(26 C. C. P. A. 221, C. A. D. 20) cited.
No. 62075.

#### Overseas Leather Importing Co. and H. A. Gogarty, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 318894-K and 324918-K (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of goatskins the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Nawi Noonoo & Co. et al.*v. *United States*(39 Cust. Ct. 57, C. D. 1904), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 39053.

#### Petition 5525-R of C. W. Shumaker (Pembina).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

The petition was submitted without the introduction of any evidence to support the claims made. On the record presented it was •denied.
Form 20-F | Integrated Media Technology Limited  Exhibit 15.2    18012 Sky Park
    Circle, Suite 200
    Irvine, California 92614
    tel 949-852-1600
    fax 949-852-1606
    www.rjicpas.com     Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm    We have issued our report dated April 28, 2022 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Integrated Media Technology Limited and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2020 and 2019, and for the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019, included in the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2021 which is incorporated by reference in this Registration Statement.  We consent to the incorporation by reference of the aforementioned report in this Registration Statement and to the use of our name as
it appears under the caption "Experts".    /s/
Ramirez Jimenez International CPAs Ramirez
Jimenez International CPAs   Irvine,
California April
28, 2022
#### G. A. S. Motor Co., Inc., *v.*Jacob Lakoff, Appellant.

*Automobiles*— Sales *of*— Payments *on account*— Evidence—Suf*ficiency.*

In an action of assumpsit on a written contract for the sale of an automobile, where the issue is one of fact as to the amount paid, the finding in favor of the plaintiff will be sustained where there is sufficient evidence to support it.

The failure of the use-plaintiff to prove the formal assignment of a contract is not a bar to a recovery.

Argued November 12, 1924.

Appeal, No. 197, Oct. T., 1924, by defendant, from judgment of Municipal Court of Philadelphia, Dec. T., 1923, No. 1155, in favor of plaintiff in case of G. A. S. Motor Co., Inc., v. Jacob Lakoff.

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

Affirmed. ,

*4February 27, 1925:

Assumpsit on written contract for sale of automobile. Before Cassidy, J., without a jury.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.

The court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $240. Defendant appealed.

*Errors assigned*were, among others, refusal of defendant’s motion for judgment non obstante veredicto and refusal to grant a new trial.

*Oscar Rosenbaum,*for appellant.

*Joseph*H. *Lieberman,*for appellee.

Opinion by

Linn, J.,

This suit grew out of the purchase of an automobile in October for delivery in December, on installment payments; defendant declined then to take the car and demanded back what he had paid. Some months later plaintiff sold the car and brought this suit for the difference between what defendant had agreed to pay and the amount received at that sale. Defendant counterclaimed for what he had paid on account. Jury trial was waived. The contract was in writing. The parties testified in contradiction of each other as to what was said and done when the delivery date arrived, and as to^ the market price of such cars when plaintiff sold it. From that dispute, the court found the facts in accord with plaintiff’s contention. As there was evidence to support the finding, we inquire no further. Most of the assignments of error complain of that phase of the case,, and are accordingly dismissed. The point to which appellant’s argument is principally directed is, that no recovery can be had because the use-plaintiff, Alperdt, failed to prove the formal assignment of the contract to him; it is without merit: Blue Star Navigation Co. to use v. Coal *5Mining Co., 276 Pa. 352, 358; Grubnau et al. v. Bank, 279 Pa. 501, 507.

Nothing else needs notice.

Judgment affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Pheng YANG, also known as Fuji, Appellant.

No. 04-3283.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 7, 2005.

Decided Sept. 23, 2005.

Erica H. MacDonald, Christian S. Wilton, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis, MN, for Appellee.

Aka Fuji, Gary R. Bryant-Wolf, Minneapolis, MN, for Appellant.

Before BYE, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Pheng Yang appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting the sexual trafficking of minor B.B. He argues that the district court erred in (1) assessing a 2-level increase under U.S.S.G. §§ 2Gl.l(d)(l) (multiple victims in commercial sex crime) and 3D1.4(a) (multiple count adjustment) (2003), because he pleaded guilty to one count that involved only one victim; and (2) increasing his offense level under both U.S.S.G. § 2Gl.l(b)(l) (offense involved commercial *737sex act and use of physical force, fraud, or coercion) and (b)(4)(B) (participant unduly influenced minor to engage in commercial sex act), because it was “double counting.”

Yang’s first argument fails because the district court did not clearly err in finding that the offense of conviction involved a second victim: unobjected-to portions of the presentence report (PSR) indicate a second victim, M.M., was subjected to all of the charged commercial-sex activities. *See United States v. Thorn,*413 F.3d 820, 823 (8th Cir.2005) (facts presented in PSR are deemed admitted unless defendant objects to inclusion of those facts); *United States v. Mathijssen,*406 F.3d 496, 498 (8th Cir.2005) (district court’s factual findings in application of Guidelines are reviewed for clear error). Further, application of section 2Gl.l(d)(l) to the second victim was proper: according to Commentary Application Note 4, section 2Gl.l(d)(l) “directs that if the relevant conduct of an offense of conviction” involves more than one victim, “whether specifically cited in the count of conviction, each such victim shall be treated as if contained in a separate count of conviction.” *See Mathijssen,*406 F.3d at 498 (application of Guidelines is reviewed de novo).

Yang’s second argument fails because he agreed to the relevant increases in his plea agreement. *See United States v. Barrett,*173 F.3d 682, 684 (8th Cir.1999) (defendant may not challenge application of Guidelines to which he agreed in plea agreement unless he proves agreement is invalid or succeeds in withdrawing from it).

Accordingly, we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 258 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That in the enrollment of the bill (H.R. 

3 1429), An Act to reauthorize the Head Start Act, to im4 prove program quality, to expand access, and for other 

5 purposes, the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall 

6 correct the bill by striking subsection (m)(1) of 
2 

•HCON 258 EH 

1 section 640 of the Head Start Act, as added by section 

2 6(g) of the bill, and inserting the following: 

3 ‘‘(1) to implement policies and procedures to 

4 ensure that homeless children are identified and 

5 prioritized for enrollment;’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives November 14, 

2007. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 258 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives 

to correct the enrollment of H.R. 1429.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 12/16/96 TENTH CIRCUIT

ROLAND S. WEAVER, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. CITY OF TOPEKA; TOPEKA HOUSING AUTHORITY; LANA BALKA, Topeka Housing Authority Director; LAWRENCE WILSON, Topeka Housing Authority Assistant Director; STEVE CORELLO, Topeka Housing Authority Inspector; LINDA FREDERICKS; LINDSEY HALL; SECRETARY OF UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT; INSPECTOR GENERAL OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT; DONNA WHITEMAN, Secretary of Kansas Social and Rehabilitation Services; FAIR HOUSING DEPARTMENT; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; DAVID HALL; KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND REHABILITATION SERVICES, Defendants-Appellees. No. 96-3218 (D.C. No. 94-4224-SAC) (D. Kan.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *** After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has

determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. - 2 - Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, KELLY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges. **
Mr. Weaver was a tenant in a federally subsidized rental program and now appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his action arising from a $558 damage assessment against him. Although the district court considered matters outside the pleadings in ruling on the motions to dismiss, it also gave Mr. Weaver an opportunity to seek reconsideration with evidentiary materials. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Although he filed an untimely motion for “redetermination,” Mr. Weaver did not come forward with either evidentiary materials that create a genuine issue of material fact or legal argument responsive to the district court’s resolution. AFFIRMED. We GRANT Mr. Weaver’s motion to proceed without prepayment of costs or fees. All other pending motions and objections are denied. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

          - [Docket No. EL07-51-000] 

                    On April 25, 2007, the Commission issued an order that instituted a proceeding in the above-referenced docket, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e, concerning the justness and                           ( print page 24284)                        reasonableness of the market-based rates of Texxon Utilities, Ltd. Co. and WCW International, Inc.                 

                    The refund effective date in the above-docketed proceedings, established pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication of this notice in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E7-8334 Filed 5-1-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P