alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 54980.

#### A. Diagonale & Sons, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 162960-K (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the ■merchandise consists of synthetic stones the same in all material respects as those -the subject of *S. Nathan & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(37 C. C. P. A. 99, C. A. D. 426), the claim at 10 percent under paragraph 1528 was sustained.
Exhibit 32.3



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 PBSJ Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Robert J. Paulsen, Chief Operating 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|             |  |  |  |     |  |                          |  |                                                                
|------------ |  |  |  | --- |  | ------------------------ |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------
|             |  |  | 
|May 14, 2004 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/    ROBERT J. PAULSEN
|             |  |  |  |     |  |                          | 
|             |  |  |  |     |  |                          |  | Robert J. Paulsen                                              
|             |  |  |  |     |  |                          |  | Chief Operating Officer, Executive Vice President and Secretary
Exhibit 99.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 Advanced Technologies Group, Ltd.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending July 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Alex Stelmak, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
19th day of June 2003.


/s/ Alex Stelmak
------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
MILLER  AND  McCOLLOM
CERTIFIED  PUBLIC  ACCOUNTANTS
7400  WEST  14TH  AVENUE,  SUITE  10
TELEPHONE  (303)-237-3077
LAKEWOOD,  COLORADO  80215
FACSIMILE  (303)-232-4856

           E-MAIL:  rmccollom@attglobal.net
                    -----------------------




July  13,  2001


Securities  and  Exchange  Commission
450  West  Fifth  Street,  N.W.
Washington,  D.  C.  20549

Gentlemen:

We hereby consent to the inclusion of our Report of Independent Certified Public
Accountants  for  Go  Online  Networks  Corporation  in this Amendment 2 to Form
10-KSB,  dated  March 15, 2001, except for Note 15 which is June 15, 2001, as of
December  31,  1999  and  2000  and  the  years  then  ended.


/s/  Miller  and  McCollom

MILLER  AND  MCCOLLOM
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1698 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1698

To add engaging in or supporting hostilities against the United States 
to the list of acts for which United States nationals would lose their 
                              nationality.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 12, 2011

 Mr. Lieberman (for himself and Mr. Brown of Massachusetts) introduced 
the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 
                            on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To add engaging in or supporting hostilities against the United States 
to the list of acts for which United States nationals would lose their 
                              nationality.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Enemy Expatriation Act''.

SEC. 2. LOSS OF NATIONALITY.

    (a) In General.--Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(8 U.S.C. 1481) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)--
                    (A) in each of paragraphs (1) through (6), by 
                striking ``or'' at the end;
                    (B) in paragraph (7), by striking the period at the 
                end and inserting ``; or''; and
                    (C) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(8) engaging in, or purposefully and materially 
        supporting, hostilities against the United States.''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(c) For purposes of this section, the term `hostilities' means 
any conflict subject to the laws of war.''.
    (b) Technical Amendment.--Section 351(a) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1483(a)) is amended by striking ``(6) and 
(7)'' and inserting ``(6), (7), and (8)''.
                                 <all>
```
99-0575 (La. 4/23/99)

#### Mae COUVILLION v. TEACHERS INSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 99-C-0575.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 23, 1999.

IN RE: Teachers Insurance Company; — Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review; Parish of Rap-ides 9th Judicial District Court Div. “A” Number 172,227; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Number CA98-1054

Denied.

JOHNSON, J. not on panel.
In the United States Court of Federal Claims

No. 14-443C

(Bid Protest)

(Filed: August 18, 2014)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

ARC ASPICIO, LLC.,

Plaintiff,

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

v.

THE UNITED STATES,

Defendant,

TERACORE INC.,

 Defendant-Intervenor.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

_________________________________________________________

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

_________________________________________________________

On May 28, 2014, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss relating that it has withdrawn the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency’s override of the Competition in Contracting Act 

(“CICA”) stay and has issued a stop work order to the awardee. As such, Defendant contends 

that the protest is moot. Plaintiff informed the Court that it does not oppose Defendant’s motion. 

This Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter 

jurisdiction and directs the Clerk of Court to DISMISS this protest.

s/Mary Ellen Coster Williams 

MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS

Judge
(Reap. Dec. 9881)

#### Copease Corp. *v.*United States

Entry No. 946135-1/2, etc.

(Decided December 19, 1960)

*Eugene R. Piclcrell*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Rao, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, attached to this decision and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States that *602the merchandise covered by the appeals for reappraisement set forth in Schedule “A”, attached hereto, consists of Sensitized Paper and Unsensitized Paper, which was exported from Western Germany during the year 1956.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that during the year 1956 such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale for home consumption to all purchasers in the principal markets of Western Germany; that during the year 1956 such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Western Germany for export to the United States; and that during the year 1956 such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale in the principal market of the United States to all purchasers.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the “cost of production” as defined in Section 402(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930 for such merchandise during 1956 was as follows:

> Invoice description Cost of production

> CpN Invoice unit values, less 20%, plus 34.65% packed

> OpG Invoice unit values, less 20% packed

> CpP Invoice unit values, less 20% packed

> OpPD and OpD Invoice unit values, less 20% packed

> OpPT, CpPTr, OpT, and CpTr Invoiced home consumption price net packed

> CpPa and OpA Invoiced home consumption price net packed

> CpK and CpPK Invoiced home consumption price net packed

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appeals for reap-praisement are abandoned as to any other merchandise listed on the invoices, and that these appeals may be deemed to be submitted for decision on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402(f) 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 were, during 1956, as follows:

> Invoice description Cost of production

> OpN Invoice unit values, less 20%, plus 34.65% packed

> OpG Invoice unit values, less 20% packed

> OpP Invoice unit values, less 20% packed

> CpPD and CpD Invoice unit values, less 20% packed

> OpPT, CpPTr, OpT, and CpTr Invoiced home consumption price net packed

> OpPA and OpA Invoiced home consumption price net packed

> OpK and OpPK Invoiced home consumption price net packed

As to all other merchandise listed on said invoices, the appeals for reappraisement having been abandoned, the same are dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
No. 43130.

#### Protest 693809-G of S. Lisk & Bro. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel novelties in chief value of rubber similar to those involved in Abstract 25607 were held dutiable at 25 percent under paragraph 1537; joke articles in chief value of paper were held dutiable at 35 percent under paragraph 1413, Abstract 37540 followed; uninflated rubber balls the same as those involved in *United States*v. *Woolworth*(24 C. C. P. A. 338, T. D. 48770) were held dutiable at 30 percent under paragraph 1502; and rubber articles similar to those involved in Abstract 41517 were held dutiable at 25 percent under paragraph 1537.
# C_2012243EN.01000302.xml

| 11.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 243/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 243/3

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 9 May 2012 — Finanzamt Freistadt Rohrbach Urfahr v Unabhängiger Fianzsenat Außenstelle Linz

(Case C-219/12)

2012/C 243/05

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Finanzamt Freistadt Rohrbach Urfahr

Applicant:

Defendant: Unabhängiger Fianzsenat Außenstelle Linz

Defendant:

Interested party: Thomas Fuchs

Interested party:

Question referred

Question referred

Is the operation of a network-connected photovoltaic installation with no independent power storage capability on or adjacent to a privately owned house used for private residential purposes, which is technically designed such that the power generated by the installation is, on a continuing basis, below the total quantity of power privately consumed by the installation operator in the privately owned house, an ‘economic activity’ of the installation operator within the meaning of Article 4 of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC? (1)

1

---

(1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.

1

---
No. 54965.

#### Kittay & Blitz, Inc., and H. Sussbach & Co. *v.*United States,

protests 162977-K and 162767-K (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of synthetic stones the same in all material respects as those ■the subject of *S. Nathan & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(37 C. C. P. A. 99, C. A. D. 426), the claim at 10 percent under paragraph 1528 was sustained.
EO 13563 Review: Interagency Comments on MATS Reconsideration 

 Higgins, Cortney 

 to: RobertJ Wayland, Bill Maxwell 

 11/14/2012 08:09 PM 

 Cc: Karen Thundiyil 

 

EO12866_MATS_Reconsideration_2060-AR62_Proposal_InteragencyCommentsunderEO13563_Nov14.docx 

MATSReconsideration_EO13563InteragencyComments_Nov142012.docx 

Hi Bob and Bill, 

 

Attached are the interagency comments on the MATS reconsideration (a 

redline of the preamble and a word file). For the call tomorrow, I’d 

like to focus on the comments in the Word filed titled 

MATSReconsideration...” 

 

 

There are also additional comments on the 11/6 RTI Memo for the Floor 

Analysis – I can walk you through those comments tomorrow at the end of 

our call. 

 

 

I should be in the office by 9 am – please give me a call if you have any 

questions. 

 

Regards, 

Cortney 

 

________________________________________________ 

Cortney Higgins, PhD 

Policy Analyst 

OMB/OIRA/NRE 

202.395.7856 

chiggins@omb.eop.gov
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
                       ----------------------------------


      We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-4 (No. 333-85527) and Form S-8 (No. 333-48343, No.
333-48345, No. 333-48349 and No. 333-48353) of Vlasic Foods International Inc.
of our report dated September 15, 1999 appearing on page 44 of the Annual Report
to Shareowners which is incorporated in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.



PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
October 13, 1999
# C_2013377EN.01001303.xml

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/13

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2013 — Gamesa Eólica v OHIM — Enercon (Blended shades of green)

(Case T-245/12) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Absolute ground for refusal - Application for Community trade mark consisting of blended shades of green - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Article 62 of Regulation No 207/2009)

2013/C 377/31

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Gamesa Eólica, SL (Sarriguren, Spain) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri and A. Sanz Cerralbo, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Enercon GmbH (Aurich, Germany)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 March 2012 (Case R 260/2011-1) relating to invalidity proceedings between Gamesa Eólica SL and Enercon GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 1 March 2012 (Case R 260/2011-1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 1 March 2012 (Case R 260/2011-1);

| 2. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of Gamesa Eólica, SL. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of Gamesa Eólica, SL.

---

(1)  OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.

1

---
EXHIBIT 31.2

I, Paul Bailey, the chief financial officer of the Company, certify that:

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Iroquois Gas
Transmission System, L.P.;

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;

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

The registrant'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 registrant
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 registrant, 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 registrant'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 registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
reporting; and

The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant'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 registrant's internal
control over financial reporting.

DATE: November 12, 2004



/S/ PAUL BAILEY
_________________________________________
PAUL BAILEY
VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
#### Meakin & Ridgway, Inc. *v.*United States

No. 8065.

Entered at New York, N. Y.

Entry No. 750700.

(Decided November 29, 1951)

*Benjamin A. Levett (Benjamin A. Levett*and *Meyer Ohlbaum*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Charles J. Wagner,*Acting Assistant Attorney General *(Richard F. Weeks,*special attorney), for the defendant,

Johnson, Judge:

.This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> *491IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to the approval of the Court, that the issues in this appeal for reappraisement are the same in all material respects as the issues decided in United States v. Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp., Suit No. 4513, C. A. D. 334 and that the record in said case may be incorporated herein.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appraised values of the merchandise involved in the entry covered by this reappraisement less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases, is equal to the price, at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise is freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, and that the foreign value of such or similar merchandise is no higher.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that this case may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

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 appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
No. 48190.

#### Protest 44346-K of General Aniline Works, Inc. (New York).

*436Opinion by

Cole, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the amino azo benzol disulphonic acid passed upon in *General Aniline Works*v. *United States*(8 Cust. Ct. 180, C. D. 600). In accordance therewith the merchandise in question was held dutiable at 7 cents per pound and 40 percent ad valorem under paragraph 27, as claimed.
Exhibit 32.1   WorldNet, Inc. of Nevada  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 WorldNet, Inc. of Nevada certifies pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:  a. the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of WorldNet, Inc. of Nevada for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 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 WorldNet, Inc. of Nevada.  Date: August  12, 2010/s/ Donald R. Mayer
Donald R. Mayer
Principal Executive Officer
Principal Financial Officer
No. 54292.

#### London Gramophone Corp. *v.*United States,

protests 142571-K and 144295-K (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of parts of record players similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Garrard Sales Corp.*v. *United States*(35 C. C. P. A. 39, C. A. D. 369). In accordance therewith the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.