alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Moody A-10 engine maintainers make history 

By Senior Airman Greg Nash23d Wing Public Affairs

                MOODY AIR FORCE BASE, Ga.   –              *Editor's note: The original story can be viewed on the Moody Air Force Base website.*

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

Moody Air Force Base23d Maintenance Squadronaircraft partsaircraft maintenancepartsmaintenancecontinuous process improvement
# C_2015262EN.01001602.xml

| 10.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2015 — Copernicus-Trademarks v OHIM — Maquet (LUCEA LED)

(Case T-186/12) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark LUCEA LED - Earlier Community word mark LUCEO - Lack of precedence - Claiming of priority - Priority date entered in the register - Priority documents - Examination by OHIM of its own motion - Rights of the defence))

(2015/C 262/21)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Copernicus-Trademarks Ltd (Borehamwood, United Kingdom), authorised to replace Verus EOOD (represented: initially by S. Vykydal and subsequently by F. Henkel, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Maquet SAS (Ardon, France) (represented by: N. Hebeis, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 February 2012 (Case R 67/2011-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Capella EOOD and Maquet SAS.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the action;

| 2) | Orders Copernicus-Trademarks Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and by Maquet SAS. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders Copernicus-Trademarks Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and by Maquet SAS.

---

(1)  OJ C 200, 7.7.2012.

1

---
No. 39124.

#### Petitions 5687-R, etc., of Household Utilities Mfg. Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It appeared that the petitioner had the exclusive right to import these bread-slicing machines into the United States and that they were not the same as those sold in Germany. On the record presented it was found there was no intention to defraud the revenue. The petitions were therefore granted.
#### Lois SHEPARD, etc. v. Linda MAYER.

No. 98-C-2871.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 8, 1999.

In re Blanchard, Paul; — Defendant(s); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; Parish of Orleans, Civil District *640Court, Div. “A”, No. 93-8540; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 97CA-2752.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., not on panel; recused.
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 Quarterly  Report of  Primeplayer  Incorporated
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Alexander  Gilliland,  Chief Executive and Financial  Officer 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 result of operations of the
     Company.

/s/ Alexander Gilliland
-----------------------
Alexander Gilliland
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer

Date:    November 14, 2003
EXHIBIT 99.1





CERTIFICATION





Pursuant to Section 906 of the Public Company Accounting Reform and
Investor Protection Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted), Edward A. Keible, Jr., the Chief Executive Officer of Endwave Corporation (the Company) hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:





| | 1. |  | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 99.1 (the
Periodic Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | -- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




| | 2. |  | The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the
period covered by the Periodic Report and results of operations of the Company for the period covered by the Periodic Report.
| | -- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------







Dated:    November 14, 2002/s/    EDWARD A. KEIBLE, JR.Edward A. Keible, Jr. Chief Executive Officer
No. 74-809.

#### Hinman *v.*United States.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
**Exhibit 32.2**
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
In connection with thequarterly report of Caneum, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB forthe quarter ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersignedprincipal financial officer of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-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 materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
Date: August 21, 2007
/s/ GaryAllhusen
**TKP** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 2 0 - 0243 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. BRANDON LEE CRAFT ,

Defendant and Appellant .**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellee ’s motion for a 30 - day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time to and including Novem

ber 3 , 2022 , within which to prepare, serve, and file its response brief

.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 28 2022

09/28/2022

Case Number: DA 20-0243
#### Deborah CHAPMAN v. DEPARTMENT OF POLICE.

No. 98-C-0828.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 8, 1998.

In re Chapman, Deborah;—Plaintiffs); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; City Civil Service Commission, No. 5404; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 97CA-1384.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., not on panel; recused.
No. 48813.

#### Protests 689091-G, etc., of Quong Yuen Shing et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

It was stipulated that certain of the merchandise in question consists of ve-tsin similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Quong Yuen Shing Co.*v. *United States*(31 C. C. P. A. 43, C. A. D. 247). The record in that case was incorporated herein. Since salt is one of the ingredients of ve-tsin the court held the merchandise to be excluded from the provisions of said paragraph 5 *(Ueland*v. *United States,*27 C. C. P. A. 56, C. A. D. 62). The merchandise was therefore held dutiable at 20 percent under paragraph 1558 as claimed.
No. 43180.

#### Protests 939464-G, etc., of Bacmo Postman Corp. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Brown, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Steinberger*v. *United States*(3 Cust. Ct. 187, C. D. 229) the white doeskin leather in question was held dutiable as chamois leather at 20 percent under paragraph 1530 (c) and the French Trade Agreement as claimed.
No. 65817.

#### W. A. Taylor & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States

protests 981960-G, etc. (San Francisco).

*546Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C.C.P.A. 180, C.A.D. 508), and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 83, C.D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
**Exhibit 31.1**CertificationsI, Suki Mudan, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2007, of Caneum, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit 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 inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report;4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly duringthe period in which this report is being prepared; b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and c. Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case ofan annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting;5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small businessissuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent functions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting.Date: September 10, 2007   /s/ Suki Mudan     Suki Mudan, President  (Principal Executive Officer)
# C_2013026EN.01004402.xml

| 26.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/44

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 November 2012 — Bauer v OHIM — BenQ Materials (Daxon)

(Case T-29/12) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Daxon - Earlier Community word mark DALTON - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 26/85

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Erika Bauer (Schaufling, Germany) (represented by: A. Merz, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: K. Klüpfel, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: BenQ Materials Corp. (Gueishan Taoyuan, Taiwan)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 November 2011 (Case R 2191/2010-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Mrs Erika Bauer and BenQ Materials Corp.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Alva Management GmbH is granted leave to be substituted for Mrs Erika Bauer as applicant; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Alva Management GmbH is granted leave to be substituted for Mrs Erika Bauer as applicant;

| 2. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The action is dismissed.

| 3. | Alva Management is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Alva Management is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 80, 17.3.2012.

1

---
Exhibit
13.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


RULE
13a-14(b)/RULE 15d-14(b) UNDER THE EXCHANGE ACT


AND
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 Fundtech Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F
for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Reuven Ben Menachem, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
adopted pursuant to §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.





Date: May
28, 2010





/s/
      Reuven Ben MenachemReuven
      Ben MenachemChief
      Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley
Act of 2002 has been provided to Fundtech Ltd. and will be retained by Fundtech
Ltd. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001056756
<NAME> NBC ACQUISTION CORP.
<MULTIPLIER>                                         1
<CURRENCY>                                U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       4,450,887
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               24,424,082
<ALLOWANCES>                                   175,899
<INVENTORY>                                 61,809,630
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            92,534,795
<PP&E>                                      36,558,620
<DEPRECIATION>                              10,797,795
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             169,045,511
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       30,236,560
<BONDS>                                    218,036,346
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,485
<OTHER-SE>                                 (79,442,111)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               169,045,511
<SALES>                                    265,290,230
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           265,290,230
<CGS>                                      164,921,525
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              164,921,525
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            76,378,766
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               140,927
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          23,042,586
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                806,426
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,515,819
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,709,393)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,709,393)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (1.48)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.48)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001118421
<NAME>                        OneSource Technologies, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Currency

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   Sep-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  315,416
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    280,770
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               762,983
<PP&E>                                         267,113
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,477,257
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,043,553
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       17,609
<OTHER-SE>                                     264,650
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,477,257
<SALES>                                        710,415
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               148,229
<CGS>                                          562,186
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  605,984
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               450,204
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (7,067)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (357,581)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (357,581)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.02)



</TABLE>
#### STATE ex rel. Ruchell Cinque MAGEE v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 97-KH-0451.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 15, 1998.

In re Ruchell Cinque Magee; Plaintiffs); applying for motion to enforce this Court’s Order dated April 4, 1997; Parish of Washington, 22nd Judicial District Court, Div. “A”, No. 10-755.

Denied. Moot. The district court has acted.

JOHNSON, J., not on panel.
#### TWENTY FOUR HOUR FUEL OIL CORP., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, et al., Defendants.

No. 98-CV-6141 ILG.

United States District Court, E.D. New York.

May 17, 1999.

Carl S. Levine, Carl S. Levine & Associates, P.C., Roslyn NY, for Twenty-Four Hour Fuel Oil Corp.

*ORDER VACATING ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND DISMISSING ACTION*

GLASSER, District Judge.

The above-titled action came before the Court upon the motion of the defendants to alter or amend the Order of February 23, 1999, imposing a preliminary injunction, and the Court, having read the papers in support of and in opposition to the motion, having heard the arguments of counsel for the parties, having considered the representation that the District Director of Internal Revenue has directed that plaintiffs claims be re-examined by a new team of excise tax agents, and that the United States will voluntarily refrain (in the absence of a determination of jeopardy) from collection of the assessed penalty by any new or presently outstanding IRS levies until the Internal Revenue Service has sent notice to plaintiff that its claims for the first and second quarters of 1997 and the months of July, August and September of 1997 have been re-examined, and the plaintiff has been afforded such further administrative review, if any, to which it is entitled under any provision of the Internal Revenue Code; and it is

HEREBY ORDERED'that the motion of the defendants to alter or amend the Order of February 23, 1999, is GRANTED and that Order is VACATED; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, there having been no showing of irreparable harm, the above-titled action is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction.