alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
EXTRACTED FROM THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CONTAINED
IN THE BODY OF THE ACCOMPANYING FORM 20-F AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
<CURRENCY> UK STERLING
       

<S>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>           12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                       DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                              1
<CASH>                                      44
<SECURITIES>                               962
<RECEIVABLES>                              197
<ALLOWANCES>                                28
<INVENTORY>                                  6
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         1,607
<PP&E>                                   2,248
<DEPRECIATION>                           1,469
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           2,705
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    2,250
<BONDS>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0
<PREFERRED>                                  0
<COMMON>                                   354
<OTHER-SE>                                  18
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             2,705
<SALES>                                      0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         3,032
<CGS>                                        0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            2,482
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          72
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            580
<INCOME-TAX>                               196
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        384
<DISCONTINUED>                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
<CHANGES>                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                               384
<EPS-PRIMARY> pence                       26.7
<EPS-DILUTED> pence                       26.6
        


</TABLE>
#### Daniel F. Young, Inc. *v.*United States

No. 7477.

Invoices dated London, England, July 22, 1941, etc.

Certified August 6, 1941, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., October 10, 1941, etc.

Entry Nos. 6561; 6713; 4897.

(Decided December 12, 1947)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn (Hadley S. King*of counsel) for the plaintiff,

*Paul Pi Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Cline, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement fisted in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

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 the unit invoice prices plus 15 per centum, packing included.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0013

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

ELIZABETH MARGARET HOSCHOUER,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including August 23, 2023, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 17 2023

07/17/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0013
---

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

In connection with the annual report of Pacific Rim Mining Corp.
  (the Company) on Form 40-F for the period ended April 30, 2007 as
  filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
  I, April Hashimoto, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
  the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|July 20, 2007 | /s/ April
      Hashimoto
|------------- | -------------------------
|              |                          
|              | April Hashimoto          
|              | Chief Financial Officer  

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
  906 has been provided to Pacific Rim Mining Corp. and will be retained by Pacific
  Rim Mining Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
  its staff upon request.

---
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Jo S. Major, Jr., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Avanex Corporation on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
June 30, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of Avanex Corporation.



By:

/s/    JO S. MAJOR,
JR.Name:

Jo. S. Major, Jr.Title:

President and Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors




I, Tony Riley,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Avanex Corporation on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2005 fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of
Avanex Corporation.



By:

/s/    TONY RILEYName:

Tony RileyTitle:

Acting Chief Financial Officer
# C_2016078EN.01001301.xml

| 29.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/13

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 January 2016 — Toshiba v Commission

(Case T-404/12) (1)

1

((Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market in gas insulated switchgear projects - New decision taken following annulment in part of the initial decision by the Court - Fines - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state reasons - Equal treatment - Starting amount - Extent of contribution to the infringement))

(2016/C 078/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Toshiba Corp. (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: J. MacLennan, Solicitor, A. Schulz and S. Sakellariou, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: N. Khan and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application, principally, for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2012) 4381 of 27 June 2012 amending Decision C(2006) 6762 final of 24 January 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (now Article 101 TFEU) and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement to the extent that it was addressed to Mitsubishi Electric Corp. and Toshiba Corp. (Case COMP/39.966 — Gas Insulated Switchgear — Fines), and, in the alternative, for the reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Toshiba Corp. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Toshiba Corp. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 343, 10.11.2012.

1

---
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**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 Annual Report of Seychelle Environmental Technology, Inc.
      (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ending February 28, 2006
      as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
      "Report"), I, Carl Palmer, Chief Executive Officer of the Company certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of the undersigned’s knowledge and
      belief:





(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 result of operations of


the
      Company.





/s/
      Carl
      Palmer -----------------------------


Carl
      Palmer


Chief
      Executive Officer


June
      12,
      2006
**Exhibit 31.2**CertificationsI, Suki Mudan, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB/A for the quarter ended March 31, 2006, of Caneum, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in thisreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed underour supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the small businessissuer, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly duringthe period in which this report is beingprepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the smallbusiness issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in thesmall business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during thesmall business issuer’s most recent fiscalquarter (the small business issuer’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, thesmall business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting;5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe small business issuer’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 rolein the small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting.Date: November 20, 2006
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1292

JOHN R. ZSIGRAY,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

COUNTY COMMISSION OF LEWIS COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA; LEWIS 

COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; JAMES H. MCATEE,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, 

at Elkins. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (2:16-cv-00064-JPB)

Submitted: August 21, 2017 Decided: January 12, 2018

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William B. Summers, SUMMERS & ASSOCIATES, Parkersburg, West Virginia, for 

Appellant. Sylvester A. Hill, Jr., CIPRIANI & WERNER, Charleston, West Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

John R. Zsigray appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

(2012) action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). We affirm.

Zsigray alleged in his complaint that, as he was leaving a courthouse in Lewis 

County, West Virginia, Defendant McAtee, a security officer, grabbed him and shoved 

him against a wall. Zsigray asserted that McAtee’s actions were unjustified and violated 

both his federal constitutional rights and state law. Notably, Zsigray stated several times 

in his complaint that a video recording of the incident supported his version of the facts. 

The district court granted the Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court reviewed 

the video and described it in considerable detail in its order. The court observed that, 

contrary to the allegations in the complaint, Zsigray and McAtee had no “semblance of a 

physical altercation.” The court’s conclusion that McAtee failed to state a claim for relief 

was based primarily on its review of the video. 

Zsigray contends on appeal that the district court erred by considering the video 

when it ruled on the motion to dismiss. However, “in reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) 

dismissal, we are not confined to the four corners of the complaint.” United States ex rel. 

Oberg v. Pennsylvania Higher Educ. Assistance Agency, 745 F.3d 131, 136 (4th Cir. 

2014). “We may also consider [materials] incorporated into the complaint by reference . 

. . so long as they are integral to the complaint and authentic.” Id. (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted). We review de novo a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). 

Woods v. City of Greensboro, 855 F.3d 639, 646 (4th Cir. 2017).
3

We hold that the district court’s consideration of the video was permissible. The 

video, to which Zsigray referred several times to authenticate his version of events, was 

integral to the complaint. Further, the authenticity of the video was not in question. 

We therefore affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before us and argument would not 

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# C_2013009EN.01002501.xml

| 12.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 9/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 9/25

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 27 July 2012 — Wolfgang Glatzel v Freistaat Bayern

(Case C-356/12)

2013/C 9/41

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Wolfgang Glatzel

Applicant:

Defendant: Freistaat Bayern

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Is point 6.4 of Annex III to Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences (1) as amended by Commission Directive 2009/113/EC of 25 August 2009 (2) compatible with Article 20, Article 21(1) and Article 26 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in so far as that provision requires — without permitting any derogation — that applicants for Category C1 and Category C1E driving licences have a minimum visual acuity of 0.1 in their worse eye even if those persons use both eyes together and have a normal field of vision when using both eyes?

1

2

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 403, p. 18.

1

(2)  OJ 2009 L 223, p. 31.

2

---
No. 96-5622.

#### Barbee *v.*Philadelphia School District et al.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Annual Report of Blue River Bancshares, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Patrice
M. Lima, Vice President and Controller, 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:

     (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.

     This certification is furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
and is not being filed for any other purpose.


/s/ Patrice M. Lima
-------------------------------------
Vice President and Controller
March 30, 2007


                                       105
---

Exhibit 4

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Thomas Shrake, certify that:

I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 40-F of Pacific Rim
Mining Co.;

1. 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;

2. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all
material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows
of the issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

3. The issuers other certifying officer(s) 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 issuer 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 issuer, 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 issuer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 issuer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 issuers internal control over
financial reporting; and

5. The issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the issuers auditors and the audit committee of the
issuer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 issuers
ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not
material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant
role in the issuers internal control over financial reporting.

|Date: July 31, 2006 | By: | /s/
      Thomas Shrake              
|------------------- | --- | -------------------------------------
|                    |     | Thomas Shrake                        
|                    |     | President and Chief Executive Officer

---
----

----

|   | 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/      Corey P. Schlossmann                                               |   |   |   |
|                                                                        |   |   |   |
| Corey      P. SchlossmannChief      Executive OfficerNovember      19, 2008 |   |   |   |

----
BARNEY FRANK

4TH DISTRICT, MASSACHUSETTS

2404 RAYBURN BUILDING WASHINGTON , DC 205 1 5-2 104 (202) 225-5931

29 CRAFTS STREET NEWTON , MA 02158 (617) 332-3920

Ms. Sandy Cooper Office-of Energy Efficiency And Renewable Energy Mail Station Ee-431 Department of Energy Washington, D.C. 20585 

# a^^jin ton,

March 30, 1995 558 PLEASANT STREET Room 309 NEW BEDFORD , MA 02740 (508) 999-6462 222 MILLIKEN PLACE THIRD FLOOR FALL RIVER, MA 02721 (508) 674-3551 89 MAIN STREET BRIDGEWATER , MA 02324 (508) 697-9403

Dear Ms. Cooper: I am writing to express my strong opposition to the Department of Energy's regulation of lighting ballasts under the National Appliance Energy Conservation Amendments of 1988. I do not believe that the regulation of lighting ballasts is necessary to the Department's goals of energy efficiency and conservation. Unlike several other appliances regulated under the National Appliance Energy Conservation Amendments, lighting ballasts are produced chiefly for industrial consumers and not private consumers. High energy cost alone compels industries to maximize their energy efficiency, including selecting very high efficiency magnetic lighting ballasts. Thus, the Department does not need to regulate lighting ballasts in order to increase industrial energy efficiency. Even more significantly, the elimination of magnetic ballasts would seriously undermine American manufacturing jobs. Unlike electronic ballasts which are manufactured outside of the United States, magnetic ballasts are primarily produced in the United States. We should not further damage already embattled American manufacturing industries by requiring that their products be replaced with products manufactured outside of the U.S. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your response.

BF/shm 

# Congr e

# zz o f 

# ite 

# tt

ou t o f e re ent tt e N

THIS STATIONERY PRINTED ON PAPER MADE OF RECYCLED FIBERS