alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
                
                Defense Logistics Agency
                        The Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency
                    DLA
            Search
                        Search Defense Logistics Agency:
                            Search
                    Search Defense Logistics Agency:
                        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  Home
  About DLA
  News
  News Article View
 News
 DLA: Be a Part of Something Big. By Public Affairs
                DLA Land and Maritime
 The Defense Logistics Agency is America's combat logistics support agency.  When you work at DLA, you not only get to be a part of an important mission, you also have opportunities for professional growth. DLA: Be a Part of Something Big. Daniel Pitaluga, Human Resources Specialist at Defense Supply Center Columbus.
            Scott Seymour, DLA Material Planner at Defense Supply Center Columbus.
 SHARE
 PRINT
  DLA L&M PACER/Intern L&M Culture L&M
 Contact UsSite IndexStrategic PlanDLA IG HotlineFOIANo FEAR ActWhistleblower ProtectionDLA CareersImagesWebmasterEEOSection 508Public AffairsSAPRExternal Links DisclaimerDOD Information Quality GuidelinesPrivacy/SecurityUSA.govDOD Web PolicyDOD Open GovernmentPlain Language
                    Stay Connected
            
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
(Reap. Dec. 9470)

#### James G. Hiering et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 17961, etc.

(Decided June 18, 1959)

*MdoLeish, Spray, Price & Underwood*for the plaintiffs.

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

Mollison, Judge:

Counsel for the parties have submitted the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the attached schedule upon stipulation, on the basis of which I find that export value, as defined in section 402(d), Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise answering to the description of No. 351 Pedals, *y2"*axle, and that such value is the invoiced unit values, net, less nondutiable charges as noted on the invoices.

The appeals having been abandoned as to all merchandise other than that described above, they are, to that extent, dismissed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDED JULY 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-02-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-30-2000
<CASH>                                          24,092
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   60,505
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,669
<INVENTORY>                                    129,973
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               222,853
<PP&E>                                         514,514
<DEPRECIATION>                                 248,167
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 582,173
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          396,955
<BONDS>                                        197,230
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       137,758
<OTHER-SE>                                   (197,226)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   582,173
<SALES>                                        901,564
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               901,564
<CGS>                                          594,531
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  893,872
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              51,308
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (42,280)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (13,641)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (28,639)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (1,423)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (30,062)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.66)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.66)


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT
      13.2**





**WRITTEN
      STATEMENT OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**


**(18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**




In
      connection with the annual report of NB Finance, Ltd. (the “Company”), for the
      period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on Form 20-F on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jean Dagenais,
      Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify 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.


/s/
              Jean DagenaisJean
                Dagenais
              Chief
                Financial Officer


Dated:  June
      29,
      2007




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company, and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 99.1

                     Form of Section 906 Certification

               CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                    AND
                 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

                    PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Saiph Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2002 (the
"Report"), I, Eric C. Bronk, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, 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)  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/ Eric C. Bronk
Eric C. Bronk
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer

Date:  August 13, 2002
No. 45274.

#### Protest 39212-K of General Dyestuff Corp. (New York.)

Opinion by

Bbown, J.

The protest was sustained in accordance with stipulation of counsel.
23 P.3d 675

#### STATE of Arizona v. Michael GAFFNEY.

No. 2 CA-CR 99-0189.

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2, Department B.

April 18, 2001.

HOWARD, Presiding Judge.

On March 29, 2001, the Arizona Supreme Court de-published this court’s Opinion in the above-captioned appeal,

ORDERED: Accordingly, this court’s written disposition of this appeal is redesig-nated a Memorandum, Decision as provided by Ariz. R. Civ.App. P. 28,17B A.R.S.

Chief Judge ESPINOSA and Judge DRUKE concurring.
No. 56754.

protests 180624-K, etc. (New York).

#### Barnett International Forwarders, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
# C_2012311EN.01001301.xml

| 13.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/13

---

Action brought on 7 August 2012 — Sachi Premium-Outdoor Furniture v OHIM — Gandia Blasco (Armchairs)

(Case T-357/12)

2012/C 311/17

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Sachi Premium — Outdoor Furniture, Lda (Estarreja, Portugal) (represented by: M. Oehen Mendes, lawyer)

Applicant:

a

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gandia Blasco, SA (Valencia, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and Designs) of 27 April 2012 (R 969/2011-3); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and Designs) of 27 April 2012 (R 969/2011-3);

| — | Declare the contested Community Design No 1512633-0003 invalid; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the contested Community Design No 1512633-0003 invalid; and

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community design trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: A design for ‘armchairs, loungers’ — registered Community design No 1512633-0003

Registered Community design trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought:

Proprietor of the Community design: The applicant

Proprietor of the Community design:

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community design:

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal requested the invalidation of the RCD based on Articles 4 to 9 of Council Regulation No 6/2002; Community design registration No 52113-0001, for ‘armchairs’

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity:

Decision of the Invalidity Division: Rejected the application for a declaration of invalidity

Decision of the Invalidity Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and declared the contested Registered Community design invalid

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 5 to 7 of Council Regulation No 6/2002.

Pleas in law:

---
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Forrest P. Jordan, Chief Financial Officer ofIWT Tesoro Corporation, certify that:

 

1.       Ihave reviewed this annual report on Form 10-Q of IWT Tesoro Corporationfor the quarter ended June 30 , 2004;

 

2.       Basedon my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;

 

3.       Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant asof, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

 

4.       Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I am responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

 

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

 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior tothe filing date of this annual report (the “Evaluation Date”); and

 

c) presented in this annual report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on ourevaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

 

5.       Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction):

 

a) all significant deficiencies in the design oroperation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and haveidentified for the registrant’s auditors any material weaknesses in internalcontrols; and

 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal controls; and

 

6.       Ihave indicated in this annual report whether or not there were significantchanges in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affectinternal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation,including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses.

 

 
| Date:  August 13, 2004 | By:                      | /s/ Forrest P.  Jordan |   |
|------------------------|--------------------------|------------------------|--------|
|                   | Forrest  P. Jordan,      |
|                   | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
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

# Aging technology that never fails

By Senior Airman Derek Seifert633rd Air Base Wing Public Affairs

                JOINT BASE LANGLEY-EUSTIS, Va.  –              *Editor's note: The original story can be viewed on the Joint Base Langley-Eustis website.*

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

Joint Base Langley-EustisRailroad733rd Logistics Readiness Squadrontransportationdelivery
# C_2014235EN.01001601.xml

| 21.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 4 June 2014 — Free v OHIM Conradi + Kaiser (FreeLounge)

(Case T-161/12) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark FreeLounge - Earlier national figurative mark free ‘LA LIBERTÉ N’A PAS DE PRIX’, earlier national word mark ‘FREE’, company name ‘FREE’ and domain name ‘FREE.FR’ - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Power to alter))

2014/C 235/20

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Free SAS (Paris, France) (represented by: Y. Coursin, lawyer)

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: Conradi + Kaiser GmbH (Kleinmaischeid, Germany)

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 25 January 2012 (Case R 437/2011-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Free SAS and Conradi + Kaiser GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 25 January 2012 (Case R 437/2011-2) is annulled in so far as it considered that the services for online publication of electronic books and periodicals as well as the services for publication of periodicals and books in electronic form, including on the Internet, falling within Class 41 and covered by the application for registration, were not similar to the services to disseminate information electronically, in particular for Internet-style global communication networks, falling within Class 38 and covered by the earlier figurative mark; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 25 January 2012 (Case R 437/2011-2) is annulled in so far as it considered that the services for online publication of electronic books and periodicals as well as the services for publication of periodicals and books in electronic form, including on the Internet, falling within Class 41 and covered by the application for registration, were not similar to the services to disseminate information electronically, in particular for Internet-style global communication networks, falling within Class 38 and covered by the earlier figurative mark;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 194, 30.6.2012.

1

---
No. 39142.

#### Protests 912980-G/87100, etc., of Chicago Apparatus Co. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *United States*v. *Oppleman*(25 C. C. P. A. 168, T. D. 49271). *364the aneroid barometers in question were held dutiable at 27)4 percent under paragraph 372 as claimed.
No. 44316.

#### Protests 580574-G, etc., of Italian Felt & Straw Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Brown, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is bodies, hoods, forms, or shapes similar to those the subject of *Cohn*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 166, C. D. 314). The protests were therefore sustained.
# C_2013026EN.01007302.xml

| 26.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/73 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/73

---

Action brought on 31 October 2012 — ZZ v Parliament

(Case F-129/12)

2013/C 26/151

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi, C. Bernard-Glanz, A. Tymen, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision to dismiss the applicant and the decision rejecting his request for assistance seeking recognition of psychological harassment, and a claim for damages.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare the present action admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the present action admissible and well founded;

| — | annul the decision to dismiss the applicant dated 19 January 2012; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision to dismiss the applicant dated 19 January 2012;

| — | annul the decision dated 20 March 2012, rejecting the applicant’s request for assistance of 22 December 2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision dated 20 March 2012, rejecting the applicant’s request for assistance of 22 December 2011;

| — | if necessary, annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament, dated 20 July 2012, received on 24 July 2012, rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 30 March 2012 against the decision to dismiss him; |
| --- | --- |

—

if necessary, annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament, dated 20 July 2012, received on 24 July 2012, rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 30 March 2012 against the decision to dismiss him;

| — | if necessary, annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament, dated 8 October 2012, received on 11 October 2012, rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 22 June 2012 brought against the decision rejecting his request for assistance; |
| --- | --- |

—

if necessary, annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament, dated 8 October 2012, received on 11 October 2012, rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 22 June 2012 brought against the decision rejecting his request for assistance;

| — | order the Parliament to pay EUR 120 000 in damages; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Parliament to pay EUR 120 000 in damages;

| — | order the Parliament to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Parliament to pay all the costs.

---
33908.

#### O’NEIL v. O’NEIL.

Per curiam.

William Joseph O’Neil petitioned in DeKalb Superior Court for modification of his $200 per month child support payments. The trial judge, sitting without a jury, denied the petition after a hearing. O’Neil has brought this appeal, but the evidence supports the finding of the trial court. *Trippe v. Trippe,*237 Ga. 159 (227 SE2d 46) (1976).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*419Submitted August 4, 1978

Decided October 24, 1978.

*Charles T. Magarahan,*for appellant.

*John T. Ashby,*for appellee.