alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 54894.

#### Coro, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 149289-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the issue herein is similar to that involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) and that the merchandise, consisting of 2,617 strings of pearls from case 231, was not in fact imported. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited it was *held*that duty is not assessable upon the 2,617 strings of pearls missing from case 231. The protest was sustained to this extent.
Exhibit
    15.1    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 June 15, 2020 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Integrated Media Technology Limited and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2019 and 2018, and for the year ended December 31, 2019 and 2018, included in the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2019 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 June
15, 2020
Case No. 8,078.

#### LANSTRAAZ v. POWERS.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 42.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Oct. Term, 1801.

Practice at Law — Action for Slander — What Necessary in Affidavit to Hold Defendant to Bail.

In slander, bail is not required, if the affidavit does not state the words spoken, and that the defendant is about to leave the district.

The affidavit to hold to bail, stated that by reason of slanderous words, (without stating what words,) spoken of the plaintiff as a miller, he conceived himself greatly injured, and that he had been informed the defendant was about fo leave the District of Columbia. The chief judge had indorsed appearance bail for fifty dollars.

1

 [Reported by Hon. William Craneh, Chief Judge.]

THE COURT

allowed the defendant to appear on common bail.
No. 56652.

protest 174910-K (New York).

#### Gerhard & Hey Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of wooden animal figures similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 55996, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
December 8, 1970

No. 22,184

#### Johnnie Ray Armes, Formerly PVT, U. S. Army v United States.

ORDERED:

That said Petition for Reconsidera*688tion be, and the same is, hereby dismissed. See Rule 49(a), Rules of Practice and Procedure, United States Court of Military Appeals.
**EXHIBIT32.2**

**Union Carbide Corporation andSubsidiaries**

**Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

I, Edward W. Rich, VicePresident, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of Union Carbide Corporation(the “Corporation”), certify that:

1.               the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Corporationfor the quarter ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.               the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Corporation.

 

 
| /s/ EDWARD W. RICH            |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|
| Edward W. Rich                |   |
| Vice President, Treasurer and |   |
| Chief Financial Officer       |   |
| May 1, 2007                   |   |

 

24

----
# C_2017030EN.01004602.xml

| 30.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 30/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 30/46

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2016 — Scorpio Poland v EUIPO — Eckes-Granini Group (YO!)

(Case T-745/15) (1)

1

((European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark YO! - Prior national work mark YO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 81)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 030/52)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Scorpio Poland, formerly FH Scorpio (Łódź, Poland) (represented by: R. Rumpel, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Schifko and E. Śliwińska, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Eckes-Granini Group GmbH (Nieder-Olm, Germany) (represented by: W. Berlit, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 October 2015 (Case R 1546/2014-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Eckes-Granini Group and FH Scorpio.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Scorpio Poland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Scorpio Poland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.

1

---
7/3/2019 Wayback Machine

https://web.archive.org/web/20090511220326/http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Law_Enforcement/nlcs/maps.Par.29137.Image.-1.-1.1.gif 1/1
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 121 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 121

     Recognizing the benefits and importance of school-based music 
                   education, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 19, 2007

    Mr. Cooper (for himself and Mr. Porter) submitted the following 
concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Education 
                               and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
     Recognizing the benefits and importance of school-based music 
                   education, and for other purposes.

Whereas school music programs enhance intellectual development and enrich the 
        academic environment for students of all ages;
Whereas students who participate in school music programs are less likely to be 
        involved with drugs, gangs, or alcohol and have better attendance in 
        school;
Whereas the skills gained through sequential music instruction, including 
        discipline and the ability to analyze, solve problems, communicate, and 
        work cooperatively, are vital for success in the 21st century workplace;
Whereas the majority of students attending public schools in inner city 
        neighborhoods have virtually no access to music education, which places 
        them at a disadvantage compared to their peers in other communities;
Whereas the arts are a core academic subject, and music is an essential element 
        of the arts; and
Whereas every student in the United States should have an opportunity to reap 
        the benefits of music education: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),  
That it is the sense of the Congress that music education grounded in 
rigorous instruction is an important component of a well-rounded 
academic curriculum and should be available to every student in every 
school.
                                 <all>
```
No. 50687.

#### Protest 813263-G of Shun Ying Chong & Co. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is similar in all material respects to that the subject of Abstract 34104, the claim at 3 cents per pound under paragraph 762 was sustained.
EXHIBIT 11.2

                     GEOWASTE INCORPORATED AND SUBSIDIARIES

                      COMPUTATION OF NET EARNINGS PER SHARE

                    FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1996

                                                                   FULLY
                                                  PRIMARY         DILUTED
Weighted Average Common Shares
outstanding...............................      18,838,065      18,838,065

Convertible debt..........................         -             2,774,475

Stock options and warrants outstanding....       1,527,975       1,931,504
                                                 ---------       ---------

Weighted average shares of common shares
  outstanding.............................      20,366,040      23,544,044
                                               ===========      ==========

Net income ...............................     $   427,042      $  509,581
                                               ===========      ===========

Earnings per share........................     $      (.02)     $     (.02)
                                               ============     ============
Exhibit 35.10  LOGO OFFICERS CERTIFICATE C-III Asset Management LLC The undersigned, Barry Davis, President of C-III Asset Management LLC (f/k/a Centerline Servicing LLC), the
Special Servicer under that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of December 1, 2015, relating to the Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Trust 2015-P2, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2015-P2(the Pooling and Servicing Agreement), hereby certifies as follows:  1.
a review of the activities of the Special Servicer and of its performance under the Pooling and Servicing
Agreement during the calendar year 2018 (the Reporting Period) has been made under the undersigneds supervision;  2.
to the best of the undersigneds knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer maintained an
effective internal control system relating to its servicing of the Mortgage Loans serviced by it and has fulfilled in all material respects its obligations under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement throughout the Reporting Period. Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings given them in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,as of the 1st day of March, 2019, I have hereunto signed my name.  /s/ Barry DavisBarry Davis, PresidentC-III Asset Management LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
# C_2017256EN.01002101.xml

| 7.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 256/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 June 2017 — Tillotts Pharma v EUIPO — Ferring (OCTASA)

(Case T-632/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark OCTASA - Prior German and Benelux word marks PENTASA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 256/21)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Tillotts Pharma AG (Rheinfelden, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Douglas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Ferring BV (Hoofddorp, Netherlands) (represented by: D. Slopek, lawyer, and I. Fowler, Solicitor

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 September 2015 (Case R 2386/2014-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Ferring and Tillotts Pharma.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Tillotts Pharma AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Tillotts Pharma AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.

1

---
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .

                               UGI UTILITIES INC.
        COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES - EXHIBIT 12.1
                             (THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                   Nine
                                                  Months
                                                   Ended              Year Ended September 30,
                                                 June 30,    ---------------------------------------------
                                                   2005        2004        2003        2002        2001
                                                 --------    --------    --------    --------    ---------
<S>                                              <C>         <C>         <C>         <C>          <C>
EARNINGS:
Earnings before income taxes                     $ 87,664    $ 83,098    $100,212    $ 73,665     $ 79,568
Interest expense                                   13,362      17,698      17,412      16,365       18,724
Amortization of debt discount and expense             181         233         244         287          264
Estimated interest component of rental expense      1,175       1,477       1,434       1,563        1,541
                                                 --------    --------    --------    --------    ---------
                                                 $102,382    $102,506    $119,302    $ 91,880    $ 100,097
                                                 ========    ========    ========    ========    =========

FIXED CHARGES:
Interest expense                                 $ 13,362    $ 17,698    $ 17,412    $ 16,365     $ 18,724
Amortization of debt discount and expense             181         233         244         287          264
Allowance for funds used during
  construction (capitalized interest)                  10          11           7          19           12
Estimated interest component of rental expense      1,175       1,477       1,434       1,563        1,541
                                                 --------    --------    --------    --------    ---------
                                                 $ 14,728    $ 19,419    $ 19,097    $ 18,234     $ 20,541
                                                 ========    ========    ========    ========    =========

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                   6.95        5.28        6.25        5.04         4.87
                                                 ========    ========    ========    ========    =========
</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of United Refining Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended February 29, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, John A. Catsimatidis, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added
by 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
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To my knowledge:



| | 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 and for the period covered
by the Report.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |     |  |                            
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | ---------------------------
|Dated: April 14, 2008 |  | By: |  | /s/ James E. Murphy        
|                      |  |     |  | James E. Murphy            
|                      |  |     |  | Principal Financial Officer
Exhibit 31.3

Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to

Securities Exchange Act Rules 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a)

as Adopted Pursuant to

Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, R. Bruce McDonald, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Adient plc for the year ended September 30, 2016;
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; and
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|3. | Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/ R. Bruce McDonaldR. Bruce McDonaldChief Executive OfficerDate:

June 29, 2017
EXHIBIT 32.2



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

     In connection with the Trinity Learning Corporation (the "Company")
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Patrick R Quinn, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
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 and 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.


Date: November 15, 2005            /S/ Patrick R Quinn
                                   ---------------------------------
                                        Patrick R Quinn
                                        Chief Financial Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Trinity Learning Corporation and will be retained by it
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
(Reap. Dec. 8855)

#### Barnett Intl. Fders., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 887085.

(Decided June 20, 1957)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

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

Mollison, Judge:

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

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that at the time of exportation of the merchandise embraced in the entry covered by the Appeal to Reappraisement noted above, there was no foreign value, export value or United States value, as defined in Section 402 (c) (d) (e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, for such or similar merchandise;

> That cost of production is the proper basis of value;

> That the cost of production of said merchandise as defined in Section 402 (f) is equivalent to the invoice unit values, packed, and that there was no higher value;

> That the appeal to reappraisement herein may be submitted for decision on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper *704basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values were the invoice unit values, packed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
No. 42004.

#### Protest 866686-G of Greenberg & Josefsberg (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

It was stipulated that the vases and bookends in question are chiefly used in the household for utilitarian purposes. The claim at 50 percent under paragraph 339 was therefore sustained.
# C_2015190EN.01003702.xml

| 8.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/37

---

Action brought on 27 March 2015 — FR v EASA

(Case F-51/15)

(2015/C 190/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: FR (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot. lawyers)

Defendant: European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision to dismiss the applicant at the end of his probationary period and claim for compensation in respect of the material and non-material damage allegedly sustained.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision dated 13 June 2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision dated 13 June 2014;

| — | in as far as necessary, annul the decision of 18 December 2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

in as far as necessary, annul the decision of 18 December 2014;

| — | as a consequence, order the compensation of the material prejudice suffered should the applicant not be reintegrated within the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); |
| --- | --- |

—

as a consequence, order the compensation of the material prejudice suffered should the applicant not be reintegrated within the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA);

| — | order the EASA to pay an indemnity for the moral prejudice suffered, evaluated ex aequo et bono and on a provisional basis at 5  800 euros; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the EASA to pay an indemnity for the moral prejudice suffered, evaluated ex aequo et bono and on a provisional basis at 5  800 euros;

| — | order the EASA to bear all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the EASA to bear all the costs.

---