alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > 15 Years After College: A Study of Alumnae of the Class of 1945

              																	United States. Women's Bureau. 						*15 Years After College: A Study of Alumnae of the Class of 1945 : Women's Bureau Bulletin, No. 283*,												Washington: 								Govt. Print. Off., 										1962,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/5549,			accessed on September 5, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
# C_2012287EN.01001603.xml

| 22.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/16

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 11 May 2012 — Andreas Ingemar Thiele Meneses v Region Hannover

(Case C-220/12)

2012/C 287/29

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Andreas Ingemar Thiele Meneses

Applicant:

Defendant: Region Hannover

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Does the right to freedom of movement and freedom of residence conferred on a Union citizen by Articles 20 and 21 TFEU preclude a regulatory system in national law under which German nationals with a permanent residence outside the Federal Republic of Germany may be awarded an education grant to attend an education establishment situated in a Member State of the European Union only if the education establishment is either in the country of permanent residence or in a neighbouring state of that country and, moreover, special circumstances of the individual case justify the grant?

---
#### R. H. Macy & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

No. 7649.

Invoices dated London, England, July 12, 1946, etc.

Certified July 15, 1946, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., August 6, 1946, etc.

Entry Nos. 710524; 758104; 709567.

(Decided January 24, 1949)

*John R. Rafter*for the plaintiff.

*David N. Edelstein,*Assistant Attorney General *(Richard F. Weeks,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Cole, Judge:

(Abstract) These appeals for reappraisement of various items of merchandise concern the so-called British Purchase Tax, described in the law of the United Kingdom entitled, “Finance (No. 2) Act 1940 3 & 4 Geo. 6 Ch. 48.” The said tax was held not to be an item to be included in foreign value as defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (c)). *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. 183, C. A. D. 334.

Undisputed facts establish that the proper basis for appraisement of the instant merchandise is export value, section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (d)), and that such statutory values for the articles in question are the appraised values less additions made on entry because of advances in similar eases.
No. 96-7752.

#### Gallagher *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 31.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I,  Joseph M. Naughton,  certify  that:

1.  I  have  reviewed  this  annual  report on Form 10-KSB of Go Online Networks
Corporation and Subsidiaries;

2.  Based  on  my  knowledge,  this  annual  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 annual
report;

3.  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
registrant  as  of,  and  for,  the  periods  presented  in  this annual report;

4.  I  am  responsible  for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures  (as  defined  in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
registrant  and  have:

a)  designed  such  disclosure  controls  and procedures to ensure that material
information  relating  to  the  registrant  is made known to me by others within
those  entities,  particularly  during the period in which this annual report is
being  prepared;

b)  evaluated  the  effectiveness  of  the  registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures  as  of  the end of the period covered by this reported based on such
evaluation;   and

c) presented in this annual report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure  controls  and  procedures  based on my evaluation on such evaluation
Date;

d)  disclosed  in  this  report any changes in the registrant's internal control
over  financial  reporting  that  occurred  during  the  period  covered  by the
annual  report  that has materially affected, or is reasonable likely to affect,
the  registrant's  internal  control  over  financial  reporting;

5.  I  have  disclosed,  based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
auditors  and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons
performing  the  equivalent  functions):

a)  all  significant  deficiencies  and  material  weaknesses  in  the design or
operation  of  internal  controls  over financial reporting which are reasonable
likely  to  adversely  affect  the  registrant's  ability  to  record,  process,
summarize  and  report  information;  and

b)  any  fraud,  whether  or  not  material,  that  involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls over
financial  reporting.



Date:  April  14,  2004                         By:  /s/  Joseph M. Naughton
                                                    ------------------------
                                                    Joseph M. Naughton
                                                Principal  Executive  Officer
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 1300** 

DOROTHY A. SCHROCK; SCHROCK, INCORPORATED , Plaintiffs

– Appellants , and
LARRY R. SCHROCK , Plaintiff ,

v. LANCER INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois Corpora tion , Defendant

– Appellee , and NATIONWIDE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Wisconsin Corporation; HERTZ CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation , Defendants

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Harrison burg

. Samuel G. Wilson , District Judge. ( 5:09

- cv - 00059

- sgw - jgw )

Submitted : January 30, 2012 Decided: February 16, 2012

Before MOTZ and SHEDD , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.2 John J. Rasmu s sen, INSURANCE RECOVERY LAW GROUP , PLC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellants. William N. Watkins, SANDS ANDERSON PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:
Dor othy A. Schrock (“Dorothy”) and Schrock, Incorporated, appeal from the district court’s declaratory judgment, entered after a bench trial, that a business automobile insurance policy issued by Lancer Insurance Company (“Lancer”) does not afford underinsure d motorist coverage to Dorothy and Larry Schrock for injuries they suffered in an automobile collision

. Appellants assert error in the district court’s determination that Lancer was not required by Va. Code

Ann. § 38.2

- 2206 (Supp. 2011) to afford such cov erage to Dorothy. We affirm. On appeal from a bench trial, we review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of
law de novo. Roanoke Cement Co. v. Falk Corp. , 413 F.3d 431, 433 (4th Cir. 2005) . After review of the rec ord, we hold that the district court properly concluded that Lancer was not required by § 38.2

- 2206 to afford uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage to Dorothy, an insured of the second class under Virginia law who was present in a vehicle not listed in Lancer’s insurance policy. Stone v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. , 478 S.E.2d 883, 886 (Va. 1996) (stating that § 38.2

- 2206 “only requires, as to insureds of the second class, that uninsured motorist coverage be provided to those who are in

. . . the
motor veh icles listed in the policy, as opposed to ‘any’ vehicle4 to which the policy might apply”) (“ Stone I ”); see also Stone v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. , 105 F.3d 188, 189

- 90, 192 (4th Cir. 1997) (applying Stone I and holding that employee was not entitled to uninsu red or underinsured motorist coverage by operation of
§ 38.2

- 2206 for injury occurring while employee was operating his personal vehicle in the scope of his employment because the vehicle

— although covered under the employer’s liability policy when used i n connection with the employer’s business

— was not listed in the policy). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s declaratory judgment . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**EXHIBIT
      12.1**





I,
      Martin
      Ouellet, certify that:





1.
      I have
      reviewed this amendment to annual report on Form 20-F of NB Finance, Ltd.;





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(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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as
      defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) 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(s) 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 management or other employees
      who
      have a significant role in the company’s internal control over financial
      reporting.







/s/ Martin Ouellet
            Date: August 16, 2006Martin
                Ouellet
              President
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-13-00359-CR

DONNA TAYLOR

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the

117th District Court of Nueces County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 12-CR-0433-B (S1)

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

July 3, 2014
---

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 20-F for the period ended April 30, 2009 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, Steven Krause, 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 24,2009
    Steven KrauseSteven KrauseChief 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 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP, INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC**

**ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No. 333-117443 and 333-141719 on Form S-3 and Registration StatementsNo. 333-150609, 333-119690, 333-109917, 333-99645, 333-74124, 333-55364, 333-34202, and 333-42952 on Form S-8 of (1) our report dated August 28, 2008, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statementschedule of Avanex Corporation and subsidiaries (the “Company”) (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph regarding the change in the Company’s method of accounting for uncertainties inincome taxes upon the adoption of Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Interpretation No. 48, *Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes—an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109,* and the change in theCompany’s method of accounting for defined benefit pension and other postretirement plans upon the adoption of FASB Statement No. 158, *Employers’ Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans—anamendment of FASB Statements No. 87, 88, 106, and 132(R)*), and (2) our report dated September 4, 2008, relating to the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting (which report expresses an adverseopinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting because of a material weakness), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Avanex Corporation for the year ended June 30, 2008. 

 

/s/    Deloitte & Touche LLP 

 

San Jose, California 

September 4, 2008
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 quarterly report of The McClatchy
Company (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Patrick J. Talamantes, 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                         |  |  |  |                                              
|------------------------ |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------------
|                         |  | 
|Dated: February 28, 2008 |  |  |  | /S/ PATRICK J. TALAMANTES                    
|                         |  |  |  | Patrick J. Talamantes Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lawrence Scott, Appellant.

[700 NYS2d 41]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.), rendered April 17, 1996, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

*260Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court did not err in disallowing his peremptory challenge to one of the prospective jurors. The determination of the Supreme Court that the challenge was a pretext for racial discrimination is entitled to great deference and will not be disturbed where, as here, it is supported by the record. The explanation of the defense counsel that the prospective juror might be too tired from the pressure of combining his work schedule and jury service was purely intuitive, and was not supported by any statement of the challenged juror *(see, People v Lowery, 256*AD2d 594; *People v Thompson,*245 AD2d 321; *People v Richie,*217 AD2d 84; *see also, Batson v Kentucky,*476 US 79).

The defendant’s contention regarding the prosecutor’s alleged misconduct during summation is not preserved for appellate review, inasmuch as he failed to register specific objections to the prosecutor’s statements *(see, People v Fleming,*70 NY2d 947). In any event, the prosecutor’s summation did not exceed the broad bounds of fair comment upon the evidence *(see, People v Galloway, 54*NY2d 396) and, in part, was a permissible response to the summation of defense counsel *(see, People v Thomas,*51 NY2d 466; *People v Marks, 6*NY2d 67, *cert denied*362 US 912).

The Supreme Court properly charged that the police officers were not interested witnesses as a matter of law *(see, People v Holly,*184 AD2d 581; *People v Melvin,*128 AD2d 647; *People v Holmes,*117 AD2d 480).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.
No. 65774.

#### Kaiser Reismann Corp. *v.*United States,

protests 264816-K and 273899-K (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of synthetic filaments similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Empire Brushes, Inc.,*and *Wood Niebuhr & Co.*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 145, C.D. 2078), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Order entered September 24, 2018

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 18

- 00511

- CV

ENCORE ENTERPRISES, INC., Appellant

V.

MAHESH SHETTY, Appellee

On Appeal from the 13 4th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 17

- 17200



### O RDER

The briefing in this appeal is complete. On August 27, 2018, appellee filed a letter in

response to certain statements in app e llant’s reply brief. A ppellant filed a response August 31,

2018 , a rguing the letter constitutes “an improper surreply” a nd urging the letter be stricken.

We construe appellant’s response as a motion, GRANT the motion, and STRIKE the

August 27 th letter.

/s/ DAVID EVANS

JUSTICE
----

----

|   | 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/  Enrique      de Vilmorin                                 |   |   |   |
|                                                                    |   |   |   |
| Enrique      de VilmorinChief      Executive OfficerApril      14, 2008 |   |   |   |

----
**VICTOR
INDUSTRIES, INC.**
 **SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION**
 
 In
connection with this annual report on Amendment No. 1 to Form 10-KSB of Victor
Industries, Inc. for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004, I, Lana Pope,
Chief Executive Officer, President and Chairman of Victor Industries, Inc.,
hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 1.  This
Amendment No. 1 to Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 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 Amendment No. 1 to Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2004 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Victor Industries, Inc. for the periods
presented therein.
 
 Date: October
21, 2005
 
 
 
 /s /
Lana Pope
 
 Lana
Pope
 Chief
Executive Officer, President and Chairman
 (Principle
Executive Officer)