alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
98-3210 (La. 4/23/99)

#### STATE of Louisiana v. David BANKS.

No. 98-KH-3210.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 23, 1999.

*878IN RE: Banks, David; — Defendant(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs; Parish of East Baton Rouge 19th Judicial District Court Div. “E” Number 3-96-441; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Number KA97 2257

Denied.

JOHNSON, J. not on panel.
TS- ACET10/20/30/40/50

Attachment #3 Pt. 1, Sec. B CA S Inventory Expert Service Report s and Chemical Structure s of the New Chemical Substance s The following pag es give the CAS Inventory Expert Service (IES) Report s on the new chemical substance s . The chemical structure s of the compounds are also provided.,(62UGHU1XPEHU

5HJLVWU\1XPEHU &$,QGH[1DPH,(62UGHU1XPEHU

5HJLVWU\1XPEHU &$,QGH[1DPH,(62UGHU1XPEHU

5HJLVWU\1XPEHU &$,QGH[1DPH,(62UGHU1XPEHU

5HJLVWU\1XPEHU &$,QGH[1DPH,(62UGHU1XPEHU

5HJLVWU\1XPEHU &$,QGH[1DPH,(62UGHU1XPEHU

5HJLVWU\1XPEHU &$,QGH[1DPH
No. 44290.

#### Protests 879754-G (A), etc., of American Straw Goods Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Bbown, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is bodies, hoods, forms, or shapes similar to those the subject of *Cohn*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 166, C. D. 314). The protests were therefore sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                          <C>                <C>               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>               3-MOS               6-MOS             YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>        DEC-31-1998         DEC-31-1998      DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>             JUN-30-1998         JUN-30-1998      DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                          0                43,336           11,749
<SECURITIES>                    0                     0                0
<RECEIVABLES>                   0                     0                0
<ALLOWANCES>                    0                     0                0
<INVENTORY>                     0                     0                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                0             4,319,538        4,387,951
<PP&E>                          0                     0                0
<DEPRECIATION>                  0                     0                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  0             4,319,538        4,387,951
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           0             1,842,440        1,801,090
<BONDS>                         0                     0                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0                     0                0
<PREFERRED>                     0                     0                0
<COMMON>                        0                     0                0
<OTHER-SE>                      0             2,477,098        2,586,861
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    0             4,319,538        4,387,951
<SALES>                         0                     0                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              209                   311                0
<CGS>                           0                     0                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0                     0                0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>           21,501                42,181                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0                     0                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0                     0                0
<INCOME-PRETAX>           (39,185)             (109,763)               0
<INCOME-TAX>              (39,185)             (109,763)               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             0                     0                0
<DISCONTINUED>                  0                     0                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0                     0                0
<CHANGES>                       0                     0                0
<NET-INCOME>              (39,185)             (109,763)               0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                   0                     0                0
<EPS-DILUTED>                   0                     0                0
         

</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                      Exhibit 32

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

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as an officer of
American Physicians Capital, Inc. (the "Company"), for purposes of 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to the best of his knowledge:

         (1) The Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period
ended June 30, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


August 14, 2003



/s/ William B. Cheeseman
-----------------------------------
William B. Cheeseman
Chief Executive Officer


/s/ Frank H. Freund
-----------------------------------
Frank H. Freund
Chief Financial Officer
# C_2017202EN.01000201.xml

| 26.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/2

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 April 2017 — FSL Holdings, Firma Léon Van Parys, Pacific Fruit Company Italy SpA v European Commission

(Case C-469/15 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European banana market in Greece, Italy and Portugal - Coordination in the fixing of prices - Admissibility of evidence transmitted by national tax authorities - Rights of the defence - Calculation of the amount of the fine - Scope of judicial review - Classification as an ‘agreement having as its object the restriction of competition’))

(2017/C 202/02)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellants: FSL Holdings NV, Firma Léon Van Parys NV, Pacific Fruit Company Italy SpA (represented by: P. Vlaemminck and B. Van Vooren, advocaaten, and by C. Verdonck, avocate, J. Auwerx, advocaat, and B. Gielen, avocate)

Appellants:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Biolan, M. Kellerbauer and P. Rossi, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders FSL Holdings NV, Firma Leon Van Parys NV and Pacific Fruit Company Italy SpA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders FSL Holdings NV, Firma Leon Van Parys NV and Pacific Fruit Company Italy SpA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 389, 23.11.2015.

1

---
#### Adeline WILLIAMS v. ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.

No. 98-CC-2937.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 15, 1999.

IN RE: Williams, Adeline; — Plaintiff(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writ; Parish of Terrebonne 32nd Judicial District Court Div. “B” Number 121497; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Number CW98 2274

Granted. Judgment of the trial court denying plaintiff pauper status is reversed. Case remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

KIMBALL, J., not on panel.
#### Herbert Schulenburg *v.*United States

No. 6077.

Invoices dated Aschaffenburg, Germany, March 4, 1938, etc.

Certified March 5, 1938, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., March 22, 1938, etc.

Entry No. 831443, etc.

(Decided December 5, 1944)

*Strauss & Hedges (Eugene F. Blauvelt*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Daniel I. Auster,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Kincheloe, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following oral stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> * * *. It is agreed between counsel for the United States and counsel for the importer that:

> (1) The merchandise involved consists of ceramic decalcomanias imported from Germany.

> (2) The merchandise and the issues in these appeals to reappraisement are similar in all material respects to the merchandise and issues involved in Re-appraisement 125252-A and others in the name of R. Gaertner & Co, which was decided in Reappraisement Decision 5727.

> (3) The record in *United States*v. *R. Gaertner & Co., Inc., supra,*may be incorporated with the.record in these cases.

> (4) At the time of exportation of the instant merchandise, such merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers, in the principal markets of Germany, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States, packed, ready for shipment at the following prices:

> , Those prices are in Reappraisement 139289-A. Eor the merchandise described under the pattern number 4461. 290, U. S. money per sheet; for the merchandise described under the same item number but qualified by the words, “Second Quality Choice,” the price is 160 per sheet.

> *416On. reappraisement 139290-A, the merchandise described on the consular invoice there involved — there’s only one item, the value is thirty-five and one-half cents, U. S. money per sheet.

> * * # * * ****

> * * *. There is no foreign value.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are as follows:

> *Reappraisement 189289-A U. S. Dollars per sheet*

> Pattern number 4461_1___0. 29

> Pattern number 4461 second quality choice_ . 16

> *Reappraisement 139290-A*

> Pattern number 5389_ . 35)4

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
#### Minton Lal JOSHI, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-74234.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 12, 2005.*

Decided Sept. 15, 2005.

Ahmed M. Abdallah, Esq., Attorney at Law, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Jennifer Lightbody, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: REINHARDT, RYMER, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Minton Lai Joshi, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of *828Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, *Celis-Castellano v. Ashcroft,*298 F.3d 888, 890 (9th Cir.2002), and will reverse the BIA’s decision only if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law,” *Singh v. INS,*295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002), *cert denied,*539 U.S. 941, 123 S.Ct. 2605, 156 L.Ed.2d 626 (2003). We deny the petition for review.

Contrary to Joshi’s contention, the BIA properly afforded the materials submitted with the motion to reopen evidentiary weight. Moreover, the BIA acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence submitted with the motion, including an affidavit, photograph, and letters from Joshi’s son and the Akali Dal party, was in part cumulative and did not establish prima facie eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under the Convention Against Torture. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); *Mendez—Gutierrez v. Ashcroft,*340 F.3d 865, 869-70 (9th Cir.2003).

Furthermore, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel because Joshi failed to meet the procedural requirements of *Matter of Lozada,*19 I. *&*N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), and it is not clear and obvious from the face of the record that Joshi’s counsel was ineffective. *See Castillo-Perez v. INS,*212 F.3d 518, 525-26 (9th Cir.2000).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS

This Certification accompanies the Form 10-Q for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2009, of China BAK Battery, Inc.

The undersigned, Xiangqian Li, the Chief
Executive Officer, and Tony Shen, the Chief Financial Officer, of China BAK
Battery, Inc. (the Company), DO HEREBY CERTIFY that:



| | 1. | The Companys Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
      December 31, 2009 (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    |                                                                                                                                                                                                       
| | 2. | Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
      all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
      of the Company.                                          



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has
executed this statement this 9th day of February, 2010.

|/s/ Xiangqian Li              |  | 
|----------------------------- |  | 
|Xiangqian Li                  |  | 
|Chief Executive Officer       |  | 
|(Principal Executive Officer) |  | 
|                              |  | 
|/s/ Tony Shen                 |  | 
|Tony Shen                     |  | 
|Chief Financial Officer       |  | 
|(Principal Financial Officer) |  | 

A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to China BAK Battery, Inc. and will be
retained by China BAK Battery, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

---
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MathStar, Inc. (the “Company”) forthe quarter ended September 30, 2009 (the “Quarterly Report”), I, AlexanderH. Danzberger, Jr., Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer ofthe Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.        The Quarterly Report fully complies withthe requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

 

2.        The information contained in theQuarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Date:   November 9, 2009 | By:    | /s/ Alexander H.  Danzberger, Jr.               |
|------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
|                               |   | Alexander H.  Danzberger, Jr.                   |
|                               |   | Chief Executive Officer  and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
Exhibit 32.1


                     WorldNet, Inc. of Nevada

                 CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT
    Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
                      18 U.S.C. Section 1350

The undersigned executive officer of WorldNet, Inc. of Nevada (the "Company")
certifies pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

(a)    the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter
       ended March 31, 2006, fully complies with the requirements of Section
       13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(b)    the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all
       material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
       the Company.


                                  /s/ Donald R. Mayer
Date: May 10, 2006                ____________________________________
                                  Donald R. Mayer
                                  Principal Executive Officer
                                  Principal Financial Officer
Before the First Division,

December 8, 1949

No. 53793.

petition 6725-R (New Orleans).

#### W. R. Zanes *&*Co. of La., Inc., and Yucatan Cordage Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cole, J.

From an examination of the testimony, which was in no way disputed by the Government, it was held that" entry at a value less than the appraised value was without intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.
#### F. W. Woolworth Co. *v.*United States

No. 6103.

Invoice dated Sonneberg, Germany, June 2, 1939.

Certified June 5, 1939.

Entered at Boston, Mass., June 28, 1939.

Entry No. 14861/1.

(Decided February 23, 1945)

*Sharretts & Hillis (Edward P. Sharretts*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Daniel I. Auster,*special attorney), for the defendant.

*338Kincheloe, Judge:

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

> It is hereby stipulated by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto subject to the approval of the court, that the facts and circumstances relating to the item of 10 per centum commission in the case listed in the annexed schedule, identified on the invoice with “xx” in green ink and the initials T. A. McC. of Examiner Timothy A. McCarthy, are in all material respects the sainé as the facts and circumstances relating to the item of 10 per centum commission specified in the invoices relating to glass tree ornaments, novelties, and figures covered by reappraisements 113038-A, 113040-A, and 113468-A of the F. W. Woolworth Co. and passed upon by the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals in *United States*v. *S. S. Kresge Co., B. Shackman & Co., Rice & Co. Corp., Strauss-Eckardt Co., Inc., F. W. Woolworth Co.,*26 C. C. P. A. 349, 352, wherein the court held that “A purchasing commission, charged for the handling of merchandise, is not a proper part of dutiable value.”

> It is further stipulated and agreed that on the date of exportation of the merchandise involved in the case listed in the annexed schedule, identified on the invoices with “xx” in green ink and the initials T. A. McC. of Examiner Timothy A. McCarthy, articles such and similar thereto were freely offered for sale and sold to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country of exportation in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States at the *per se*unit invoice prices, plus 3J4 per centum social assessments for insurance, vacation, and holiday costs, plus packing, as invoiced, and that there was no higher foreign value.

> As to all other items, the appeal is abandoned.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that the record in *United States*v. *S. S. Kresge Co. et al.,*26 C. C. P. A. 349, 352, be incorporated herein and that the said appeal to reappraisement is submitted on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise represented on the invoice by the items marked “xx” in green ink and the initials T. A. McC. of Examiner Timothy A. McCarthy, and that such values are the *per se*unit invoice prices, plus *3)(*per centum social assessments for insurance, vacation, and holiday costs, plus packing, as invoiced.

The appeal having been abandoned insofar as it relates to all other merchandise, to that extent the appeal is hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
**Exhibit 31.2**

** **

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

 

I, James A. Rotherham, C.P.A.,Chief Financial Officer of Kintera, Inc. (the “Registrant”), certify that:

 

1.             I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Qof the Registrant;

 

2.             Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this quarterly report;

 

3.             Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, andother financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly presentin all material respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisquarterly report;

 

4.             The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theRegistrant and we have:

 

(a)           designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly reportis being prepared;

 

(b)           evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c)           disclosed in this quarterly report any change in theRegistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theRegistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

 

5.             The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofRegistrant’s board of directors:

 

(a)           all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b)           any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrant’sinternal controls over financial reporting.

 

Dated:  May 17, 2004

 

 
| /s/ James A.  Rotherham, C.P.A.               |   |
|-----------------------------------------------|--------|
| James A.  Rotherham, C.P.A.                   |
| Chief  Financial Officer                      |
| (Principal  Financial and Accounting Officer) |

 

----