alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
balance sheet and statements of operations found on pages F-3 and F-4 of the
Company's Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1998, and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                             292
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   292
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   6,732
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,471
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,050
<OTHER-SE>                                      (4,789)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     5,261
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,389
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (8,389)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of MBT Financial Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, John L. Skibski, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as enacted pursuant to 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





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




/s/ John L. SkibskiJohn L. SkibskiChief Financial OfficerMay 16, 2011




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to MBT Financial Corp. and will be retained by MBT Financial Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.1   SKINOVATION PHARMACEUTICAL INCORPORATED  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 Skinovation Pharmaceutical Incorporated certifies pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:  a. the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Skinovation Pharmaceutical Incorporated for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 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-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of  Skinovation Pharmaceutical Incorporated.   Date: April 29, 2011/s/ Hugo Rodier
Hugo Rodier
Principal Executive Officer
Principal Financial Officer
# C_2013009EN.01003002.xml

| 12.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 9/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 9/30

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 11 October 2012 — Werner Krieger v ERGO Lebensversicherung AG

(Case C-459/12)

2013/C 9/50

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Landgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Werner Krieger

Applicant:

Defendant: ERGO Lebensversicherung AG

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Must the first indent of Article 15(1) of Council Directive 90/619/EEC of 8 November 1990 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance, laying down provisions to facilitate the effective exercise of freedom to provide services and amending Directive 79/267/EEC (Second Life Assurance Directive), (1) having regard to Article 31(1) of Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance and amending Directives 79/267/EEC and 90/619/EEC (Third Life Assurance Directive), (2) be interpreted as precluding a provision — such as the fourth sentence of Paragraph 5a(2) of the Versicherungsvertragsgesetz (Law on insurance contracts) in the version of the Drittes Gesetz zur Durchführung versicherungsrechtlicher Richtlinien des Rates der Europäischen Gemeinschaften (Third Law implementing directives of the Council of the European Communities on insurance law) of 21 July 1994 — under which a right of cancellation lapses one year at the latest after payment of the first premium even if the policy-holder has not been informed about the right of cancellation?

1

2

---

(1)  OJ 1990 L 330, p. 50.

1

(2)  OJ 1992 L 360, p. 1.

2

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-27-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       2,289,141
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,455
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,290,596
<PP&E>                                       1,420,244
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,710,840
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          361,058
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,349,782
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,710,840
<SALES>                                          7,388
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                19,674
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                88,895
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,721
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (72,942)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (72,942)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (72,942)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO. v. COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION. MINNEAPOLIS, ST. P. & S. S. M. R. CO. v. COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION. NORTHERN PAC. RY. CO. v. COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION.

Civ. Nos. *1577,*1578, 1579.

United States District Court, D. Minnesota, Fourth Division.

Jan. 10, 1949.

For original opinion, see *77*F.Supp. *780.*

J. H. Mulally, of St. Paul, Minn., for Great Northern Ry. Co.

D. R. Frost, of St. Paul, Minn., for Northern Pacific Ry. Co.

A. O. Bjorklund, of Minneapolis, Minn., for Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Ry. Co.

John W. Graff, U. S. Atty., of St. Paul, Minn., for Commodity Credit Corporation.

JOYCE, District Judge.

After hearing arguments of counsel and after due consideration thereof, It is Hereby Ordered, that the motions of the plaintiffs are hereby denied, An exception is reserved to each of the parties.

Upon the hearings of these motions it became apparent to the Court that plaintiffs are apprehensive that the Court’s memorandum opinion of April 26, 1948 might be construed as authority -for the application of the “ex-lake” rate to shipments other than “exTlake” shipments. The memorandum decision sought to make clear that the questions decided therein were applicable only to the facts in these three cases, but in order that any misunderstanding might be eliminated the Court’s memorandum decision of April 26, 1948 is hereby amended by adding thereto as a separate paragraph on page 15 of the Court’s memorandum opinion, 77 F.Supp. 780, 789, immediately preceding the paragraph commencing with the words “Were these shipments transited * * * ” the following new paragraph:

In concluding that the “ex-lake” rate published in the Kipp Tariff is a “local (flat, not proportional or reshipping)” rate as that term is used in the Hoke Tariffs, it is not suggested or implied that the “ex-lake” rate is applicable to any shipments other than the “ex-lake” shipments specifically identified as such in the Kipp Tariff. The designation of the rate in the Kipp Tariff as “ex-lake” and the provision in the Kipp Tariff that “on shipments of ex-lake whole grain, flaxseed and/or screenings * * * shippers must certify that shipments were received by boat * * * ” limits the application of the “ex-lake” rate to ex-lake shipments where it is properly certified that the shipments were received by boat and would exclude shipments which were not ex-lake and which were not received by boat. In these three cases the only shipments in question were ex-lake *853shipments and for which shipments proper certificates were filed that they were received by boat and as to which shipments it was stipulated that the “ex-lake” rate in the Kipp Tariff was applicable.
Exhibit 12.1 I, Dmitry Ye. Yerokhin, certify that: 1.       I  have  reviewed this annual report
on  Form  20-F of Open  Joint  Stock  Company  Long-Distance  and  International
Telecommunications Rostelecom; 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; 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  company as of, and for,  the  periods  presented  in this
report; 4.       The  companys other certifying
officer  and I are  responsible  for  establishing  and  maintaining  disclosure
controls  and  procedures  (as  defined  in  Exchange  Act Rules  13a-15(e)  and
15d-15(e)) for the company and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures,  or caused such disclosure
controls and  procedures to be designed  under our  supervision,  to ensure that
material  information  relating  to  the  company,  including  its  consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,  particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared; (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the  companys  disclosure  controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions  about the effectiveness
of the disclosure  controls and procedures,  as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the  companys  internal control
over financial  reporting that occurred  during the period covered by the annual
report that has  materially  affected,  or is  reasonably  likely to  materially
affect,  the  companys  internal  control over  financial  reporting;  and 5.       The  companys other certifying
officer and I have  disclosed,  based on our most recent  evaluation of internal
control over financial reporting,  to the companys  auditors and the audit
committee of the  companys  board of directors (or persons  performing the
equivalent functions):  (a) All  significant  deficiencies  and  material  weaknesses  in the  design or
operation of internal  control over  financial  reporting  which are  reasonably
likely to  adversely  affect the  companys  ability  to  record,  process,
summarize and report financial information; and (b)  Any  fraud,  whether  or  not  material,  that  involves  Rostelecoms
management or other employees who have a significant role in the  companys
internal control over financial reporting.   Date:
        June 29, 2005
        /signed/ Dmitry Ye. Yerokhin _______________________ Dmitry Ye. Yerokhin General Director (CEO) of OJSC Long-Distance and International Telecommunications Rostelecom
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


This certification set forth below is hereby made solely for the purpose of
satisfying the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and
may not be relied upon or used for any other purposes.

In connection with the Annual Report of Nebraska Book Company, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Alan G.
Siemek, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to 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

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

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 the written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.



                               /s/ Alan G. Siemek
                               -------------------------------------------------
                                   Alan G. Siemek
                                   Chief Financial Officer
                                   June 26, 2008
(Reap. Dec. 9603)

#### Arbor Mfg. Corp. *v.*United States

Entry No. 863278-1/2, etc.

(Decided February 25, 1960)

*Jordan & Klmgaman (Jacob L. Klmgaman*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*George Oochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General *(Samuel D. Spector,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

When the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the attached schedule were called for trial, counsel for the *575parties submitted them for decision upon agreed facts on the basis of which I find that the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise involved is export value, as defined in section 402(c), Tariff Act of 1930, and that such value in each case is the appraised value, less the item of commission as and where it appears on each invoice, packed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
#### BOLTEN v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION.

No. 48 C 1450.

United States District Court N. D. Illinois, E. D.

Jan. 26, 1949.

John P. Conmy, of ¡Chicago, 111., and Popham, Thompson, Popham, Mandell & Trusty, of Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiff.

Hubbard, Baker & Rice, of Chicago, 111., for defendant.

CAMPBELL, District Judge.

Plaintiff, a citizen of Missouri and an employee of the Kelley Asbestos Products Co., was injured while doing certain work in defendant’s plant located in Missouri. He now brings a common law action for damages based on the alleged negligence of defendant corporation. The latter denied negligence and asserted as affirmative defenses that (a) the action is barred by the two-year Statute of Limitations of Illinois, Ill.Rev.Stat.1947, c. 83, § 15, and (b) plaintiff previously recovered from the Kelley Co. under the Workmen’s Compensation Act of Missouri, Mo.R.S.A. § 3689 et seq. Simultaneously, defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground that the action is barred by the Statute of Limitations. On his part, plaintiff moved for leave to dismiss the complaint without prejudice and without cost, or, in the alternative, to have the cause transferred to Missouri (which has a five-year Statute of Limitations, Mo.R.S.A. § 1014) under Section 1404 of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C.A.

The right of action asserted here is of common law origin rather than one created by statute and, as such, the time within which it may be enforced is governed by the general statute of limitations. And the rule is clearly established that where a general statute of limitations is interposed as a defense, the law of the forum, which is Illinois in this instance, governs. “Many, if not all, of the class-of cases referred to wherein the limitation was a part of the cause of action also recognize the general principle that where a general statute of limitations is interposed as a defense that the law of the forum governs.” Haefer v. Herndon, D.C., 22 F.Supp. 523, 524.

Furthermore, it should be remembered that the selection of the forum was plaintiff’s, and he should not now be permitted to transfer the action indiscriminately. The ¡Court is obliged to apply the law as it exists in this district and, when such *852is done, nothing remains which can be transferred to another district.

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to dismiss the action without prejudice and without cost or, in the alternative, to have the cause transferred, is, therefore; denied. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted, and the same is accordingly entered in favor of defendant at plaintiff’s cost.
No. 48816.

#### Protests 33745-K, etc., of N. Y. Mdse. Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The record disclosed that the brass base shells in question are similar to those involved in *New York Merchandise Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(8 Cust. Ct. 209, C. D. 607). The protests were therefore sustained as to this claim.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
               OF FACTUAL DATA CORP. PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SS.1350


         I, J.H. Donnan, certify that:

         In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Factual Data Corp.
(the "COMPANY") for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "REPORT"), I, J.H.
Donnan, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to 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, 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/  J.H. Donnan
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Name:    J.H. Donnan
                                             Title:   Chief Executive Officer
                                             Date:    March 24, 2003
**EXHIBIT 23.1**
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLICACCOUNTANTS**
     We consent to the incorporation by reference inthe Registration Statements on Form S-8Nos. 333-30976, 333-47101, 333-56615 and 333-56675 andForm S-3 No. 333-84461, of Jacuzzi Brands, Inc. of ourreport dated November 21, 2003 with respect to theconsolidated financial statements and schedule of JacuzziBrands, Inc. included in this Annual Report on Form 10-Kfor the fiscal year ended September 30, 2003, filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission.
 /s/ Ernst & Young LLP    
West Palm Beach, FloridaDecember 16, 2003
33877.

#### DORMINY v. DORMINY.

Argued September 12, 1978

Decided October 4, 1978.

*Yancey, Perkins & Barnick, Howard E. Yancey, Jr.,*
      *327for appellant.

*326Hill, Justice.

This is an appeal from that portion of the final judgment and decree of divorce between the parties which awarded custody of the parties’ minor child to the former wife. Appellant argues that reversal is mandated by the trial judge’s seemingly placing the burden of proof on the father and his reference in that order to the special place of a mother’s love. The trial court also stated that "both parties are fit and proper persons to have custody of their minor child and that the interests of the child will be best served by awarding permanent custody of said child to the plaintiff mother.” This is the appropriate test, a decision right for any reason will not be set aside, and we find no abuse of discretion. Code Ann. § 74-107; *Harris v. Harris,*240 Ga. 276 (240 SE2d 30) (1977).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Jordan, J., who concurs in the judgment only.*

*327
      *Reinhardt, Whitley & Sims, Glen Whitley,*for appellee.