alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 12.2**

I, Roman A. Frolov, certify that:

1.      Ihave reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Open Joint StockCompany Long-Distance and International Telecommunications Rostelecom;

2.      Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.      Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for,the periods presented in this report;

4.      Thecompany’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the company and have:

(a)   Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures 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, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;

(b)   Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

(c)   Disclosedin this report any change in the company’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

5.      Thecompany’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company’sauditors and the audit committee of the company’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)   Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the company’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

(b)   Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves Rostelecom’s management or other employees who have asignificant role in the company’s internal control over financial reporting.
| Date: June 30, 2006 |                                 |
|--------------------------|--------------------------------------|
|                     | /s/ Roman A. Frolov                  |   |
|                     | Roman A. Frolov                      |
|                     | Chief Accountant (CFO) of            |
|                     | OJSC Long-Distance and International |
|                     | Telecommunications Rostelecom        |

 

 

----
♥

♥

♥

♥

♥

♥

♥

♥

x



P

vietnamese · november 2002

1

2

3
vietnamese · november 2002
No. 65764.

#### A. N. Deringer, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 58/25386, etc. (Portland, Maine).

Opinion by

Wilson-, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of fish similar in all material respects to the fish blocks the subject of *The Lee Herrmann Co., a/c The Coldwater Seafood Corp*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 49, C.D. 2101), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1412 Referred in House (RFH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1412

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 21, 2011

      Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 462 Washington Street, Woburn, Massachusetts, as the ``Officer John 
                         Maguire Post Office''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. OFFICER JOHN MAGUIRE POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 462 Washington Street, Woburn, Massachusetts, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Officer John Maguire Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Officer 
John Maguire Post Office''.

            Passed the Senate October 20, 2011.

            Attest:

                                                NANCY ERICKSON,

                                                             Secretary.
```
Exhibit 35.4



LOGO

Annual Statement as to Compliance

For the Year Ended December 31, 2017

Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc.,

Series 2016-GC37

Pursuant
to Section 3.01 (32) of the Subservicing Agreement governing the referenced transaction (the Servicing Agreement), I hereby attest that:



| | i. | A review of the activities and performance of Berkadia as Subservicer during the period has been made under my supervision.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | ii. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, Berkadia as Subservicer has fulfilled, in all material respects, its obligations under this Subservicing Agreement throughout the period and no default by the
Subservicer under the Subservicing Agreement has occurred and is continuing.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Berkadia,



|                 
|-----------------
|LOGO             
|Mark E. McCool   
|President        
|February 10, 2018

Inv. 823 Lib. A
Before the Second Division,

October 9, 1942

No. 47633.

#### Protest 869014-G of Eric Wedemeyer (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 41633 the claim at 40 percent under paragraph 339 was .sustained.
BB

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. OP 24-0283

JOSEPH S. CLARK,

Petitioner, 

v. 

JAMES SALMONSEN, Warden, 

Montana State Prison,

Respondent. 

ORDER

Upon consideration of the State’s motion for a 14-day extension of time, and 

good cause appearing therefor, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent is granted an extension of time

to and including June 24, 2024, within which to prepare, file, and serve the State’s

response to the petition.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 4 2024

06/04/2024

Case Number: OP 24-0283
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1423 

To clarify the orphan drug exception to the annual fee on branded prescription 

pharmaceutical manufacturers and importers. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 27, 2011 

Mr. TOOMEY (for himself, Mr. CASEY, and Mr. WYDEN) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To clarify the orphan drug exception to the annual fee on 

branded prescription pharmaceutical manufacturers and 

importers. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Preserving Access to 

5 Orphan Drugs Act of 2011’’. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1423 IS

1 SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF ORPHAN DRUG EXCEPTION TO 

2 ANNUAL FEE ON BRANDED PRESCRIPTION 

3 PHARMACEUTICAL MANUFACTURERS AND 

4 IMPORTERS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (3) of section 9008(e) 

6 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public 

7 Law 111–148) is amended to read as follows: 

8 ‘‘(3) EXCLUSION OF ORPHAN DRUG SALES.— 

9 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘branded 

10 prescription drug sales’ shall not include sales 

11 of any drug or biological product— 

12 ‘‘(i) with respect to which a credit was 

13 allowed for any taxable year under section 

14 45C of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; 

15 or 

16 ‘‘(ii) which is approved or licensed by 

17 the Food and Drug Administration for 

18 marketing solely for one or more rare dis19 eases or conditions. 

20 ‘‘(B) LIMITATION.—Subparagraph (A) 

21 shall not apply with respect to any drug or bio22 logical product after the date on which the drug 

23 or biological product is approved or licensed by 

24 the Food and Drug Administration for mar25 keting for any indication other than the treat26 ment of a rare disease or condition. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1423 IS

1 ‘‘(C) RARE DISEASE OR CONDITION.—In 

2 this paragraph, the term ‘rare disease or condi3 tion’ has the meaning given such term under 

4 section 45C(d)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code 

5 of 1986, except that in the case of any drug or 

6 biological product that has not been designated 

7 under section 526 of the Federal Food, Drug 

8 and Cosmetic Act for a particular indication, 

9 determinations under such section 45C(d)(1) 

10 shall be made on the basis of the facts and cir11 cumstances as of the date such drug or biologi12 cal product is approved or licensed by the Food 

13 and Drug Administration for marketing for the 

14 treatment of such disease or condition.’’. 

15 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

16 this section shall take effect as if included in section 9008 

17 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public 

18 Law 111–148). 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
#### In the Matter of Charles T. TAYLOR, Esquire A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

No. 99-BG-141.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

June 24, 1999.

Before RUIZ and REID, Associate Judges; and GALLAGHER, Senior Judge.

*413ORDER

PER CURIAM.

On consideration of the affidavit of Charles T. Taylor, wherein he consents to disbarment from the Bar of the District of Columbia pursuant to § 12 of Rule XI of the Rules Governing the Bar of the District of Columbia, which affidavit has been filed with the Clerk of this Court, the report and recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility with respect thereto, and the letter from Bar Counsel taking no exception to the report and recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility, it is this 24th day of June, 1999

ORDERED that the said Charles T. Taylor, is hereby disbarred on consent, effective forthwith. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that as a condition for reinstatement, respondent is required to pay full restitution of $27,500, with accrued interest at the legal rate of 6%, to Ms. Irish Eccles and Dr. Henry Wyatt, as provided in the Board on Professional Responsibility’s report and recommendation to the Court. If any portion of the restitution has been made by the Clients’ Security Fund, respondent shall repay the Fund. See D.C. Bar R. XI, § 3(b).

The Clerk shall publish this order, but the affidavit shall not be publicly disclosed or otherwise made available except upon order of the Court or upon written consent of the respondent.

The Clerk shall cause a copy of this order to be transmitted to the Chairman of the Board on Professional Responsibility and to the respondent, thereby giving him notice of the provisions of Rule XI, §§ 14 and 16, which sets forth certain rights and responsibilities of disbarred attorneys and to the effect of failure to comply therewith.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Brian T. Crowley, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify that:



| | 1. | To my knowledge, this report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To my knowledge, the information contained in this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of BSQUARE
Corporation.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: March 25, 2010



/s/ Brian T. CrowleyBrian T. CrowleyPresident and Chief Executive Officer
### Average annual runoff in the Wind River Basin in Wyoming

By: Roy Edwin OltmanHubert Jerome Tracy

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/cir66

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf) 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
SCWC-20-0000101

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

STATE OF HAWAI‘I,

Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

LEONARD SPORIK,

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-20-0000101; CASE NO. 1DTA-18-03076)

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.)

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant’s Application for Writ 

of Certiorari filed on August 6, 2021, is hereby rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, September 29, 2021.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ Todd W. Eddins

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-20-0000101

29-SEP-2021

10:13 AM

Dkt. 11 ODAC
No. 47636.

#### Protest 766090-G of Twin City Textile Mills (St. Paul).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Cotton rags the same as those the subject of *United States*v. *Schapiro*(24 C. C. P. A. 343, T. D. 48771) were held entitled to-free entry under paragraph 1750 in accordance with the percentage of rags used, chiefly .for paper making as set out in stipulation entered into between counsel.
# C_2019295EN.01003201.xml

| 2.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/32

---

Order of the General Court of 27 June 2019 — Saint-Gobain Isover G+H and Others v Commission

(Case T-109/15) (1)

(State aid - Aid granted by certain provisions of the amended German law on renewable energy sources - Annulment of the act criticised by the Court - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)

(2019/C 295/40)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Saint-Gobain Isover G+H AG (Ludwigshafen am Rhein, Germany), Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland GmbH (Stolberg, Germany), Verallia Deutschland AG, formerly Saint-Gobain Oberland AG (Bad Wurzach, Germany) and Saint-Gobain Sekurit Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG (Herzogenrath, Germany) (represented by: S. Altenschmidt et H. Janssen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: R. Sauer, and subsequently by: T. Maxian Rusche and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1585 of 25 November 2014 on the aid scheme SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) (implemented by Germany for the support of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users) (OJ 2015 L 250, p. 122).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate in the case. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate in the case.

| 2. | The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by Saint-Gobain Isover G+H AG, Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland GmbH, Verallia Deutschland AG, formerly Saint-Gobain Oberland AG, and Saint-Gobain Sekurit Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by Saint-Gobain Isover G+H AG, Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland GmbH, Verallia Deutschland AG, formerly Saint-Gobain Oberland AG, and Saint-Gobain Sekurit Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.

---
## IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________



### m 99-30790

_______________



### L OUISIANA 

### S EAFOOD 

### M ANAGEMENT 

### C OUNCIL 

### , I NC 

### .; J OHN 

### T HOMPSON 

### ; E DDIE 

### L

E 

### J UINE 

### ; M ATTHEW 

### R EAGAN 

### ; C LARA 

### G ERICA 

### ; T ODD 

### S TIPELCOVICH 

### ; B ARRY 

### S CHAFERKOTTER 

### ; D AVID 

### M ILLS 

### ; C HRISTON 

### C HERAMIE 

### ; P ETER 

### S TEVEN 

### H OTOPH 

### ; E UGENE 

### H ICKMAN 

### ; C HAD 

### L AY 

### ; L INDBERG 

### S ANTINI 

### ;

N ED 

### F. M ALLEY 

### , J R 

### .; AND 

### B ARISICH 

### , I NC 

### ., Plaintiffs-Appellants,

VERSUS



### M URPHY 

### J. F OSTER 

### , J R 

### ., G OVERNOR 

### ; R ICHARD 

### P. I EYOUB 

### , A TTORNEY 

### G ENERAL 

### ; J OE 

### H ERRING 

### ; C HARLES 

### C LARK 

### ; P ETER 

### V UJNOVICH 

### ; J OHN 

### F. S CHNEIDER 

### ; P ETTY 

### G ISCLAIR 

### ; D ANIEL 

### B ABIN 

### ; J OSEPH 

### P. C ORMIER 

### ; G LYNN 

### C ARVER 

### ; W YNTON 

### V IDRINE 

### ; L OUISIANA 

### W ILDLIFE AND 

### F ISHERIES 

### C OMMISSION 

### ; AND 

### L OUISIANA 

### D EPARTMENT OF 

### W ILDLIFE AND 

### F ISHERIES 

### , Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

(96-CV-106)

_________________________ December 11, 20002

Before POLITZ, SMITH, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The plaint iffs challenge a state statute. In a comprehensive opi nio n, the district court dismissed the compla int as barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

We have reviewed the briefs and applicable law and pertinent po rtions of the record and h ave heard the arguments of counsel . We agree with the district court’s persuasive reasoning, and we affirm, essenti a lly for the

reasons stated by the district court, with the exception of its discussion of judicial estoppel, which was not necessary to the result.

AFFIRMED.

* Pu rsuant to 5 T H C IR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.
#### MARKS v. NEUFELD et al.

Civ. No. 866.

United States District Court S. D. Iowa, Central Division.

Oct. 8, 1948.

Hallagan & Lucier, of Des Moines, Iowa, for plaintiff.

Abramson & Myers, of Des Moines, Iowa, for L. C. Neufeld, Neufeld Enterprises, Inc. and Delman Corporation.

Robt. J. Bannister, of Des Moines, Iowa, for Rudolph L. Lowell.

DEWEY, District Judge.

This action was removed from the State court by the defendants, and a motion by the plaintiff to remand came on for hearing in open court at Des Moines, Iowa, on the first day of October, 1948. The motion to remand was argued and submitted.

Section 371 [now § 1338], Title 28 U.S. C.A. provides for exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the United States, as follows: “Fifth. Of all cases arising .under the patent-right * * * laws of the United States.”

The removal was had under a claim that this suit was, at least partially, a proceeding arising under a patent-right law of the United States.

Plaintiff does not claim that he is the owner of a patent, but he does claim, among other things, that he is the owner and inventor of a windshield spray device and that on the 11th day of March, 1946, he filed an application with the United States Patent Office for a patent on the same. And he claims that he has granted to some of the defendants a distributor’s license to make, use and vend said device, and that the defendants, or a part of them, have wrongfully manufactured, used and vended said device and have violated the license agreement.

The interesting question therefore has arisen whether a controversy arising under rights claimed on account of an invention of a device and an application for a patent thereon, where no patent has been issued, is a case arising under a patent right of the United States.

These defendants have not shown to the court nor can I find from an extensive examination where this action, or any part of it, is based upon an issue that arises under the patent laws of the United States.

It is therefore ordered that this action be, and it is hereby ordered, remanded to the State court from which it was removed.
No. 62091.

#### R. H. Newmark *v.*United States,

protests 303992-K and 303993-K (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

An examination of the records disclosing that the protests were prematurely filed, the protests were dismissed.