alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
9/20/2007 Page of

POSTFOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT

This report revised to reflect change in concentration of concern to 1 ppb.

Case Number: P040636 Assessor: Flessner

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES

Scenario#: 1 Number of Release Sites:

Release Activity: PROC1

Release Description: WATER LANDFILL INCINER LAND/INCIN FUGITIVE

Total Releases:

(kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr)

Release Days/yr:

Per Site Release:

(kg/day) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/day)

Remarks:

Consumer use expected?POSTFOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT Page of

CASE NUMBER:P040636Page of

POSTFOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT

Case Number: P040636 Assessor:

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES

Scenario#: 2 Number of Release Sites: 5000.

Release Activity: USE

Release Description: WATER LANDFILL INCINER LAND/INCIN FUGITIVE

Total Releases:

(kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr)

Release Days/yr:

Per Site Release:

(kg/day) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/day)

Remarks:
No. 51192.

#### Protests 50733-K, etc., of Roma Importing Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decisions cited the following allowances were made to compensate for the weight of the inedible substance on the outside of the cheese: (1) *2}i*percent for the cheese similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706), Abstract 42146, and Abstract 48269; and (2) 1 percent for the cheese similar to the Reggiano cheese the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States, supra.*The protests were sustained to this extent.
# C_2017030EN.01004501.xml

| 30.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 30/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 30/45

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2016 — Guiral Broto v EUIPO — Gastro & Soul (Café del Sol)

(Case T-548/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Café del Sol - Earlier national figurative mark Café del Sol - Failure to submit evidence in the language of the opposition proceedings - Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Rules 19 and 20 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Rights of the defence))

(2017/C 030/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ramón Guiral Broto (Marbella, Spain) (represented by: J.L. de Castro Hermida, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. O’Neill, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Gastro & Soul GmbH (Hildesheim, Germany)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 July 2015 (Case R 2755/2014-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Guiral Broto and Gastro & Soul.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 16 July 2015 (Case R 2755/2014-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Ramón Guiral Broto and Gastro & Soul GmbH; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 16 July 2015 (Case R 2755/2014-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Ramón Guiral Broto and Gastro & Soul GmbH;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders EUIPO and Mr Guiral Broto each to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders EUIPO and Mr Guiral Broto each to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 398, 30.11.2015.

1

---
No. 51171.

#### Protests 7973-K, etc., of A. Hurst & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that passed upon in *Adolphe Hurst & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(33 C. C. P. A. 96, C. A. D. 322). In accordance therewith the claim for free entry under paragraph 1796 was sustained.
No. 45167.

#### Protests-22169-K, etc., of Mattoon & Co. et al. (San Francisco).

*502Opinion by

Keefe, J.

From an examination of the papers the court was unable to find anything sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s action. The protests were therefore overruled.
Exhibit 12.1



         United Air Lines, Inc. and Subsidiary Companies
                                
        Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                                
<TABLE>                                
<CAPTION>
                                            Three Months
                                               Ended
                                              March 31
                                                      
                                           1998     1997
                                           ----     ----
                                           (In Millions)
<S>                                        <C>      <C> 
Earnings:                                                 
                                                          
   Earnings before income taxes           $  89    $ 166
   Fixed charges, from below                232      235
   Undistributed earnings of affiliates     (20)     (25)
   Interest capitalized                     (26)     (24)
                                           ----     ----          
       Earnings                           $ 275    $ 352
                                           ====     ====
                                                          
Fixed charges:                                            
                                                          
   Interest expense                       $  81    $  70
   Portion of rental expense                              
     representative of the interest factor  151      165
                                           ----     ----
       Fixed charges                      $ 232    $ 235
                                           ====     ====
                                                          
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges         1.19     1.50
                                           ====     ====
                                                          
</TABLE>
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent, <br><br>against<br><br>Elvin Genao, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Joanne B. Watters, J.), rendered on May 31, 2018, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of harassment in the second degree, and imposing sentence.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgment of conviction (Joanne B. Watters, J.), rendered on May 31, 2018, affirmed.</p><p>Since defendant waived prosecution by information, the accusatory instrument only had to satisfy the reasonable cause requirement of a misdemeanor complaint (<a href="../2014/2014_04038.htm" target="_blank"><i>see People v Dumay</i>, 23 NY3d 518</a>, 522 [2014]). So viewed, the accusatory instrument—comprising the misdemeanor complaint and the domestic incident report signed by complainant—was jurisdictionally valid, since it provided reasonable cause to believe that defendant was guilty of second-degree harassment (<i>see</i> Penal Law § 240.26[1]), the offense to which he ultimately pleaded guilty. Allegations that defendant, the father of complainant's son, called his son to "tell him bad stuff about" complainant, and then telephoned the complainant and stated "when I see you, I will knock your teeth out," were sufficient at the pleading stage to support a finding that defendant made a "genuine threat" to physically harm complainant (<i>People v Dietze</i>, 75 NY2d 47, 54 [1989]; <a href="../2005/2005_06677.htm" target="_blank"><i>see Matter of Czop v Czop</i>, 21 AD3d 958</a>, 959 [2005]<a href="../2016/2016_50165.htm" target="_blank"><i>; People v Lopez</i>, 50 Misc 3d 139</a>[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 50165[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2016],<i> lv denied </i>27 NY3d 1071 [2016]).</p><p>All concur.</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><p>Clerk of the Court</p><br>Decision Date: June 18, 2020<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS REGARDING ACTIONS TAKEN WITHOUT A MEETING


KRONOS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

 

WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

REGARDING ACTIONS TAKEN WITHOUT A MEETING

 

The undersigned, being majority members of the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of KRONOS

Advanced Technologies Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Corporation” or "KNOS”), acting

pursuant to the authority given to the board by Nevada Code Annotated, as amended, does

hereby waive all notice of the time, place and purpose of a meeting and hereby consents and

agrees to the adoption of the following resolutions, with the same force and effect as if made at a

duly convened and held meeting of the Board.

 

WHEREAS the officers of the Corporation serve at the pleasure of the Board; and

 

WHEREAS it will benefit the Corporation’s shareholders by spinning off DogeSPAC LLC pro

rata to all shareholders; and

 

WHEREAS Spin off will help the Corporation to focus on its core business; and

 

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Corporation spin off 100% of Doge SPAC, LLC to

its shareholders pro rata so that | restricted share of DogeSPAC will be issued and paid to all

shareholders for each 1 share of KNOS held on June 22, 2021 based on a record date of June 15

2021.

 

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that DogeSPAC will act as its own transfer agent initially in

order to conserve funds and distribute the shares to the Knos shareholders based on list of

shareholders as of close of business on June 15 2021.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned certifies that the majority has consented to this

resolution and has through its Secretary executed this written consent as of the 25th day of May,

2021.

 

  

/s/ Michael Rubinov

  

 

President, Secretary, Director

 

Date: May 25, 2021
No. 40335.

#### Protest 871358-G of Southern Kraft Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

It was found on the record presented that the turbine blades are necessary and essential parts of the steam turbine in question. The claim at 20 percent under paragraph 372 was therefore sustained.
EXHIBIT 32
 Certification by the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
Relating to a Periodic Report Containing Financial Statements
  (1)
    
    The Companys periodic report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 (the
Form 10-Q) containing the financial statements fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 (2)
    
    The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
    
    
    
    CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER/s/ David W. Trego

David W. Trego
    
    
    
    /s/ John C. Barney

John C. BarneyDate: May 8, 2009
    
    
    
    Date: May 8, 2009
#### Finch Manufacturing Company *v.*Miller & Sons, Appellants.

*Sales*— Order—Evidence—Sufficiency.

In an action of assumpsit for a breach of contract, the case is for the jury and a verdict will be sustained, where the issue is one of fact and the testimony of the plaintiff established a prima facie ^ case of the manufacture, price and delivery of the subject of the contract.

Argued March 4, 1925.

Appeal, No. 39, Feb. T., 1925, by defendants, from judgment of C. P. Lackawanna Co., Oct. T., 1920, No. 1369, in the case of Finch Manufacturing Company v. Morris Miller and Samuel Miller, Jr., trading as Samuel Miller & Sons.

Before Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.

Affirmed.

Assumpsit on written contract. Before Edwards, P. J.

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

Verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $360.71 and judgment thereon. Defendant appealed.

*Error assigned*was, among others, the refusal of defendants’ motion for judgment non obstante veredicto.

*395April 28, 1925:

*J. Julius Levy,*of *Kaufman, Mattes & Levy,*for appellants.

*C. B. Price,*and with him *S. B. and J. H. Price,*for appellee.

Opinion by

Henderson, J.,

The pleadings and evidence in this case presented issues of fact which the court could not properly have withheld from the jury. The written order of November 18,1909, given by the defendants to the plaintiff was indefinite in terms as to the quantity of dies to be manufactured. The oral evidence identified the particular verbal orders given by Southwell apparently pursuant to the written direction of the defendants. The motive for the latter’s order to the plaintiff may be found in the fact that one of the members of the defendant company was treasurer of the Lackawanna Shovel Company for whom Southwell was acting in obtaining the service from the plaintiff company. The jury has found that the work was done as claimed by the plaintiff pursuant to the defendant’s order and this Ivas the material inquiry in the action. The statement of claim and the oral evidence in support of it, to the effect that the work was completed and billed to the Lackawanna Shovel Company, established a prima facie case of the manufacture, price and delivery of the subject of the contract: Corr v. Sellars, 100 Pa. 171; Vallee Bros. Electric Co. v. North Penn Iron Co., 32 Pa. Superior Ct. 111; Henderson v. Jennings, 228 Pa. 188. The manufacture and delivery was supported by the averments of the claim and the evidence relating to the completion of the dies with notice to the party for whom they were made. In a careful consideration of the case, we are unable to find a state of fact which would have warranted binding instructions to the jury, nor is there an apparent abuse of discretion in the refusal of the court to grant a new trial.

The assignments are overruled and the judgment affirmed.
# C_2015381EN.01001802.xml

| 16.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 3 September 2015 — Jean-Michel Adrien, Frédéric Baron, Catherine Blanchin, Marc Bouillaguet, Anne-Sophie Chalhoub, Denis d’Ersu, Laurent Gravière, Vincent Cador, Roland Moustache, Jean Richard de la Tour, Anne Schneider, Bernard Stamm and Eléonore von Bardeleben v Premier ministre, Ministre des finances et des comptes publics, Ministre de la décentralisation et de la fonction publique

(Case C-466/15)

(2015/C 381/22)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Jean-Michel Adrien, Frédéric Baron, Catherine Blanchin, Marc Bouillaguet, Anne-Sophie Chalhoub, Denis d’Ersu, Laurent Gravière, Vincent Cador, Roland Moustache, Jean Richard de la Tour, Anne Schneider, Bernard Stamm and Eléonore von Bardeleben

Applicants:

Defendants: Premier ministre, Ministre des finances et des comptes publics, Ministre de la décentralisation et de la fonction publique

Defendants:

Question referred

Question referred

Is national legislation which permits an official on secondment to an institution of the European Union to choose, for the duration of his secondment, either to suspend his payment of contributions to the pension scheme in his State of origin, in which case his pension under that scheme is fully aggregated with the retirement benefits connected with the secondment, or to continue with the payments, in which case his pension under that scheme is limited to the amount required in order to bring the total amount of the pensions, including the pension acquired under the scheme applicable to the position to which he is seconded, to the amount of the pension he would have acquired if he had not been seconded contrary to the obligations under Article 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, read in the light of Article 48 TFEU, and to the principle of sincere cooperation referred to in Article 4 of the Treaty on the European Union?

---
EXHIBIT
32.1








CERTIFICATION
UNDER SECTION 906


OF
THE


SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002








In
connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Unico American Corporation
(the "Company") for the period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Cary L. Cheldin, Chief
Executive Officer 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 the best of my knowledge:





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





2.
            the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.











/s/  Cary L.
Cheldin




Name:                    Cary
L. Cheldin


Title:                      Chairman
of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer


Date:                     November
10, 2009














A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to Unico American Corporation, and will be
retained by Unico American Corporation, and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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 Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency 

          - [FEMA-3274-EM] 

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. 

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for the State of Indiana (FEMA-3274-EM), dated March 12, 2007, and related determinations. 

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

April 17, 2007. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Magda Ruiz, Disaster Assistance Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of an emergency declaration for the State of Indiana is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared an emergency by the President in his declaration of March 12, 2007: 

Porter, Steuben, and Wells Counties for emergency protective measures (Category B), including snow removal, under the Public Assistance program for any continuous 48-hour period during or proximate to the incident period. 

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds:  97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049, Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050, Individuals and Households Program-Other Needs, 97.036, Public Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program). 

R. David Paulison,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

 [FR Doc. E7-7972 Filed 4-25-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 124 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), 

3 SECTION 1. USE OF CAPITOL GROUNDS FOR NATIONAL 

4 PEACE OFFICERS’ MEMORIAL SERVICE. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Grand Lodge of the Fra6 ternal Order of Police and its auxiliary (in this resolution 

7 referred to as the ‘‘sponsor’’) shall be permitted to 
2 

•HCON 124 EH 

1 sponsor a public event, the 26th annual National Peace 

2 Officers’ Memorial Service (in this resolution referred to 

3 as the ‘‘event’’), on the Capitol Grounds, in order to honor 

4 the law enforcement officers who died in the line of duty 

5 during 2006. 

6 (b) DATE OF EVENT.—The event shall be held on 

7 May 15, 2007, or on such other date as the Speaker of 

8 the House of Representatives and the Committee on Rules 

9 and Administration of the Senate jointly designate. 

10 SEC. 2. TERMS AND CONDITIONS. 

11 (a) IN GENERAL.—Under conditions to be prescribed 

12 by the Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police 

13 Board, the event shall be— 

14 (1) free of admission charge and open to the 

15 public; and 

16 (2) arranged not to interfere with the needs of 

17 Congress. 

18 (b) EXPENSES AND LIABILITIES.—The sponsor shall 

19 assume full responsibility for all expenses and liabilities 

20 incident to all activities associated with the event. 

21 SEC. 3. EVENT PREPARATIONS. 

22 Subject to the approval of the Architect of the Cap23 itol, the sponsor is authorized to erect upon the Capitol 

24 Grounds such stage, sound amplification devices, and 
3 

•HCON 124 EH 

1 other related structures and equipment, as may be re2 quired for the event. 

3 SEC. 4. ENFORCEMENT OF RESTRICTIONS. 

4 The Capitol Police Board shall provide for enforce5 ment of the restrictions contained in section 5104(c) of 

6 title 40, United States Code, concerning sales, advertise7 ments, displays, and solicitations on the Capitol Grounds, 

8 as well as other restrictions applicable to the Capitol 

9 Grounds, in connection with the event. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 7, 2007. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 124 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the 

National Peace Officers’ Memorial Service.
|   | **EXHIBIT                31.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY                ACT** |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                     |                                                                      |                                           |
|------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------|
|                                     | **UNITED                  MORTGAGE TRUST**                                |
|                                |                                                                 |                                      |
| Date: May                  15, 2007 | By                                                              | /s/ Christine                  A. Griffin |
|                                     | *President                  and Chief Executive                  Officer* |

----