alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 54974.

#### Manhattan Vintage Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 156009-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

From an examination of the papers in the case, the court was unable to find any evidence sufficient to overcome the action of the collector, which was presumptively correct. The protest was therefore overruled.
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 Global Realty  Development Corp.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Robert Kohn,  Chief Executive  Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 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 and 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.



Date:  November 14, 2006                 By: /s/ Robert Kohn
                                         ------------------
                                         Robert Kohn
                                         Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>
 
                                                                     Exhibit 3.5

                           CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT

                                      OF

                         CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION


     PEI HOLDING, INC., a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue
of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware,

     DOES HEREBY CERTIFY:

     FIRST:  That the Board of Directors of said corporation, by the unanimous
written consent of its members, filed with the minutes of the Board, adopted a
resolution proposing and declaring advisable the following amendment to the
Certificate of Incorporation of said corporation:

     RESOLVED, that the Certificate of Incorporation of PEI HOLDING, INC. be
     amended by changing the First Article thereof so that, as amended, said
     Article shall be and read as follows:

     The name of the corporation is:  Prestolite Electric Holding, Inc.

     SECOND:  That in lieu of a meeting and vote of stockholders, the
stockholders have given unanimous written consent to said amendment in
accordance with the provisions of Section 228 of the General Corporation Law of
the State of Delaware.

     THIRD:  That the aforesaid amendment was duly adopted in accordance with
the applicable provisions of Sections 242 and 228 of the General Corporation Law
of the State of Delaware.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said PEI HOLDING, INC. has caused this certificate to
be signed by K. C. Cornelius, its Vice President, and D. P. Chelminski, its
Treasurer, this Thirtieth day of December, 1998.

                              PEI HOLDING, INC.

                              By: /s/ K. C. Cornelius
                                  ------------------------------

                              By: /s/ D. P. Chelminski
                                  -----------------------------
University of Kentucky
    UK Libraries
    Special Collections Research Center
Menu
    About
                    About ExploreUK
            How to
                    Activate your Researcher AccountRequest MaterialsVisit SCRCFind Copyright and Use Information
            Contact Us
            Researcher Account LoginSearch Home |
    Back to Search Results

Download
    JPEGof this page
    PDFof entire itemCombined Farming-Industrial Employment in the Cotton Textile Subregion of Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina
Date
1936Creator
United States Works Progress Administration, Division of Social Research Rural Section.Language
EnglishCollection
South Carolina Works Progress Administration PublicationsDescription
Preliminary report; Prepared by W. W. Troxell and others; Other contributors include: W. W. Troxell, Land Utilization Division Resettlement Administration; 79 pages: illustrations, maps, charts, 27 cm; Cover title has Research Bulletin (Not for Release); UK holds archival copy for ASERL Collaborative Federal Depository Program libraries; Call number Y 3.W 89/2:13/J1

You may come across language in UK Libraries Special Collections Research Center collections and online resources that you find harmful or offensive. SCRC collects materials from different cultures and time periods to preserve and make available the historical record. These materials document the time period when they were created and the view of their creator. As a result, some may demonstrate racist and offensive views that do not reflect the values of UK Libraries.

If you find description with problematic language that you think SCRC should review, please contact us at SCRC@uky.edu.

Item Details
Text

Rights
This digital resource may be freely searched and displayed in accordance with U. S. copyright laws.Geographic Subject
Alabama, Georgia, and South CarolinaPublisher
Washington, D.C.Format
booksPermalink
https://exploreuk.uky.edu/catalog/xt7tmp4vmm25XML Metadata
https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7tmp4vmm25/data/mets.xml

The text may or may not be an accurate representation of the original.
# C_2012295EN.01003301.xml

| 29.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/33

---

Action brought on 28 May 2012 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-58/12)

2012/C 295/57

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for (i) annulment of the implied decision rejecting the applicant’s request relating to the defendant’s compliance with the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 November 2008 in Case F-41/06 Marcuccio v Commission and (ii) compensation for the harm which the applicant claims to have suffered.

Marcuccio

Commission

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision issued by — or in any event attributable to — the Commission rejecting — howsoever and whether in full or in part — the claims set out in the application of 25 March 2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision issued by — or in any event attributable to — the Commission rejecting — howsoever and whether in full or in part — the claims set out in the application of 25 March 2011;

| — | annul the decision issued by — or in any event attributable to — the Commission rejecting — howsoever and whether in full or in part — the claims set out in the application of 17 October 2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision issued by — or in any event attributable to — the Commission rejecting — howsoever and whether in full or in part — the claims set out in the application of 17 October 2011;

| — | in so far as necessary, declare that, by failing to adopt, even in part, the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 November 2008 in Case F-41/06 Marcuccio v Commission, within a reasonable time of that judgment’s delivery, the Commission has acted unlawfully; |
| --- | --- |

—

in so far as necessary, declare that, by failing to adopt, even in part, the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 November 2008 in Case F-41/06 Marcuccio v Commission, within a reasonable time of that judgment’s delivery, the Commission has acted unlawfully;

Marcuccio

Commission

| — | order the Commission to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 70 000 by way of compensation for the wrongful damage sustained by the applicant as a result of the Commission’s unlawful failure to adopt all the measures necessary for compliance with the judgment of 4 November 2008; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 70 000 by way of compensation for the wrongful damage sustained by the applicant as a result of the Commission’s unlawful failure to adopt all the measures necessary for compliance with the judgment of 4 November 2008;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
No. 47685.

#### Protest 948072-G of Geo. S. Bush & Co. (Portland, Oreg.).

Opinion by

Walker, J..

A sample of the boxes was received in , evidence. The proof established that they are the usual, customary containers of Japanese mandarin oranges and that they have no commercial value after being emptied of their contents. Following *Maynard*v. *United States*(8 Ct. Cust. Appls. 297, T. D. 37581) the protest was overruled.
009611

Consumer Product Safety Alert

FROM THE U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20207

CPSC Warns of Drowning Hazard

With Baby Bath Seats or Rings

P r event Drow n i n g . N ever Leave Child Unattended

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is aware of 28 deaths associated with baby bath seats

or rings since 1983. These bath rings usually contain three or four legs with suction cups that attach to

the bottom of the tub. However, the suction cups may suddenly release allowing the bath ring and baby

to tip over. A baby may also slip between the legs of the bath ring and become trapped under it.

Do not rely on these devices to keep baby safe in the bath. Parents or other attendants must never

leave a baby alone in these bath support rings. Even turning away to answer the doorbell or telephone

could result in injury or drowning of the baby.
---

Exhibit 5

CERTIFICATIONS

I, F. John Norman, 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/ F.
      John Norman
|------------------- | --- | ------------------------
|                    |     | F. John Norman          
|                    |     | Chief Financial Officer 

---
# C_2012165EN.01002501.xml

| 9.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 165/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 165/25

---

Action brought on 26 March 2012 — Ben Ali v Council

(Case T-133/12)

2012/C 165/43

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Mehdi Ben Tijani Ben Haj Hamda Ben Haj Hassen Ben Ali (Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray, France) (represented by: A. de Saint Remy, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | adopt a measure of organisation of procedure, under Article 64 of the General Court’s Rules of Procedure, to ensure that the Commission discloses ‘all documents relating to the adoption’ of the contested regulation; |
| --- | --- |

—

adopt a measure of organisation of procedure, under Article 64 of the General Court’s Rules of Procedure, to ensure that the Commission discloses ‘all documents relating to the adoption’ of the contested regulation;

all documents relating to the adoption

| — | annul the contested regulation in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested regulation in so far as it concerns the applicant;

| — | order the Council of the European Union to pay the applicant an overall sum of EUR 50 000 in compensation for all forms of damage; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council of the European Union to pay the applicant an overall sum of EUR 50 000 in compensation for all forms of damage;

| — | order the Council of the European Union to pay the applicant a sum of EUR 7 500 for legal expenses in support of the application, in accordance with Article 91 of the Rules of Procedure, as recoverable costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council of the European Union to pay the applicant a sum of EUR 7 500 for legal expenses in support of the application, in accordance with Article 91 of the Rules of Procedure, as recoverable costs;

| — | order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By his application, the applicant seeks (i) the annulment of Council Decision 2012/50/CFSP of 27 January 2012 amending Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (1) and (ii) damages in respect of the loss which he considers to have suffered.

1

In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-301/11 Ben Ali v Council. (2)

Ben Ali

Council

2

---

(1)  OJ 2012 L 27, p. 11.

1

(2)  OJ 2011 C226, p. 29.

2

---
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


     I, Len Ksobiech state and attest that:

     (1) I am the acting Treasurer of OneSource Technologies, Inc. (the
"issuer").

     (2) Accompanying this certification is the Form 10-QSB for the period ended
June 30, 2004, a periodic report (the "periodic report") filed by the issuer
with the Securities Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), which contains
financial statements.

     (3) I hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that based on my
knowledge:

          a. the quarterly report containing the financial statements fully
     complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange
     Act, and

          b. the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents,
     in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
     of the issuer for the periods presented therein.

/s/  Len Ksobiech
-----------------
Acting Treasurer

Date: August 16, 2004
The Attorney General of Texas 

November 30, 1979 

MARK WHITE 

Attorney General 

Honorable Pellpe Reyna 

Criminal District Attorney 

McLennan County Courthouse 

Waco, Texas 76701 

Dear Mr. Reyna: 

Opinion No. ML+9 2 

Re: Distribution and use of 

judicial district funds. 

You ask whether judicial district funds for adult probation services, 

which include probation fees and state aid funds, may be used for the 

payment of normal service and maintenance costs on equipment provided to 

an adult probation department by a county. 

Section 10(f) of article 42.12 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure 

states in part: 

It shall be the responsibility of the county or counties 

comprising the judicial district or geographical area 

served by such district probation department to 

provide physical facilities, equipment, and utilities 

for an effective and professional adult probation and 

adult community-based correctional service. 

Attorney General Opinion H-1216 (1976) determined that section 10(f) 

“requires the counties to provide, from their own funds and not from 

probation fees, the physical facilities, equipment, and utilities needed for 

the probation office.” The statutory requirement to provide equipment is a 

continuing one, and we believe the requirement that a county provide 

equipment to the adult probation office encompasses the duty to maintain 

the equipment. Pursuant to its rule-making authority in section 3.01 of 

article 42.121, the Texas Adult Probation Commission has promulgated a 

standard requiring that each probation officer be provided with “adequate” 

equipment. Standard 606.01.00.070a, 3 Tex. Reg. 1560 (1976). We believe 

“adequate equipmenV’ means equipment in good repair. In our opinion, the 

county’s duty to provide equipment includes the implied duty to maintain it 

properly. 

p. 283 
Honorable Felipe Reyna - Page Two INN- 92 ) 

SUMMARY 

Counties are responsible for maintaining and repairing the equlpment they provide adult probation departments pursuant to section 

10(f) of article 42.12 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 

Very trulv vows. n 

MARK WHITE 

Attorney General of Texas 

JOHN W. FAINTER, JR. 

First Assistant Attorney General 

TED L. HARTLEY 

Executive Assistant Attorney General 

Prepared by Susan Garrison 

and Linda Hall 

Assistant Attorneys General 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

C. Robert Heath, Chairman 

David B. Brooks 

Susan Garrison 

Rick Gilpin 

Linda Hall 

Willlam G Reid 

Bruce Youngblood 

P. 284
No. 74-5796.

#### Reid *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
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 Cyber Defense Systems, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
William C. Robinson, CEO, Chairman and Principal Executive Officer, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 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.

                                              CYBER DEFENSE SYSTEMS, INC.

                                              By: /s/ William C. Robinson
                                                  -----------------------------
                                                  William C. Robinson
                                                  CEO, President, Chairman and
                                                  Principal Executive Officer

                                                  February 7, 2007
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 94 (Wednesday, May 16, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27589-27590]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9400]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[F-14865-B; AK-964-1410-HY]


Alaska Native Claims Selection

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of decision approving lands for conveyance.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: As required by 43 CFR 2650.7(d), notice is hereby given that 
an appealable decision approving lands for conveyance pursuant to the 
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act will be issued to Deloycheet, 
Incorporated. The lands are in the vicinity of Holy Cross, Alaska, and 
are located in:

Seward Meridian, Alaska

T. 24 N., R. 55 W.,
    Secs. 16 and 17;
    Sec. 18 and that portion of U.S. Survey No. 10183 formerly 
within Native allotment application AA-59647.

    Containing approximately 1,636 acres.

T. 26 N., R. 55 W.,
    Secs. 4 to 8, inclusive;
    Secs. 17 to 20, inclusive;
    Secs. 29 to 32, inclusive.

    Containing 6,832.21 acres.

T. 25 N., R. 58 W.,
    Secs. 2 to 6, inclusive;
    Secs. 11 and 14;
    Secs. 23, 24 and 25.

    Containing 4,058.61.
    Aggregating approximately 12,527 acres.


[[Page 27590]]


    The subsurface estate in these lands will be conveyed to Doyon, 
Limited, when the surface estate is conveyed to Deloycheet, 
Incorporated. Notice of the decision will also be published four times 
in the Tundra Drums.

DATES: The time limits for filing an appeal are:
    1. Any party claiming a property interest which is adversely 
affected by the decision shall have until June 15, 2007 to file an 
appeal.
    2. Parties receiving service of the decision by certified mail 
shall have 30 days from the date of receipt to file an appeal.
    Parties who do not file an appeal in accordance with the 
requirements of 43 CFR Part 4, Subpart E, shall be deemed to have 
waived their rights.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the decision may be obtained from: Bureau of Land 
Management, Alaska State Office, 222 West Seventh Avenue, <greek-i>13, 
Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7504.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: The Bureau of Land Management by 
phone at 907-271-5960, or by e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#36575d18545a5b1855595840534f5758555376575d18545a5b18515940"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a4c5cf8ac6c8c98ac7cbcad2c1ddc5cac7c1e4c5cf8ac6c8c98ac3cbd2">[email protected]</span></a>. 
Persons who use a telecommunication device (TTD) may call the Federal 
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8330, 24 hours a day, 
seven days a week, to contact the Bureau of Land Management.

Barbara Opp Waldal,
Land Law Examiner Branch of Adjudication II.
[FR Doc. E7-9400 Filed 5-15-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-$$-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
No. 96-7041.

#### Cardwell *v.*Nevada.

Sup. Ct. Nev. Certio-rari denied.