alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Before the First Division,

October 2, 1943

No. 48818.

#### Petition 6369-R of Ecuadorian Panama Hat Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

This case involves certain hats which were bought-from a commissionaire or dealer who collects them from native weavers. The record disclosed that the prices fluctuate from time to time in the home market, due to seasonal activities, weather conditions, and harvesting. The witness stated that before making entry he submitted the invoices to the appraiser but that the appraiser had no information. The invoiced values were accepted and the merchandise appraised at such values, but later the collector appealed to re-appraisement, the petitioner discovered different values, and stipulated as to the higher values. The court was of the opinion that the petitioner might well have established some more definite method of ascertaining market conditions and prices prevailing at the time of shipment, but upon the entire record it was convinced that the petitioner had no intent to conceal any information, or to deceive the appraiser. The petition was therefore granted.
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 

Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the 

Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound 

volumes go to press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 22-BG-700

IN RE THOMAS MCCARTHY, JR.

DDN: 2021-D106

An Administratively Suspended Member 

of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Bar Registration No. 996764

BEFORE: McLeese and Howard, Associate Judges, and Ferren, Senior Judge. 

O R D E R

(FILED—November 23, 2022)

On consideration of the opinion and certified copy of the order from the state 

of Maryland disbarring respondent from the practice of law; this court’s September 

21, 2022, order suspending respondent pending final disposition of this proceeding 

and directing him to show cause why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed; 

respondent’s motion for an extension of time to file his lodged late response; and the 

statement of Disciplinary Counsel; and it appearing that respondent filed his D.C. 

Bar R. XI, § 14(g) affidavit on November 14, 2022, it is 

ORDERED that respondent’s motion for an extension of time is granted and 

his lodged response is filed. It is 

FURTHER ORDERED that Thomas McCarthy, Jr., is hereby disbarred from 

the practice of law in the District of Columbia, nunc pro tunc to November 14, 2022. 

See In re Sibley, 990 A.2d 483, 487-88 (D.C. 2010) (explaining that there is a 

rebuttable presumption in favor of imposition of identical discipline and exceptions 

to this presumption should be rare); In re Fuller, 930 A.2d 194, 198 (D.C. 2007) 

(stating that a rebuttable presumption of identical reciprocal discipline applies unless 

one of the exceptions is established). Although respondent argues that exceptions 

apply and reciprocal discipline should not be imposed, these arguments merely 
No. 22-BG-700

attempt to relitigate the discipline imposed by the state of Maryland, which is not 

permitted in reciprocal discipline cases. See In re Chaganti, 144 A.3d 20, 24 (D.C. 

2016) (“[O]ur responsibility in reciprocal discipline matters is not to sit in appellate 

review of the foreign disciplinary proceedings, in order to determine whether they 

conformed in every respect to local procedural and substantive law.”); In re 

Zdravkovich, 831 A.2d 964, 969 (D.C. 2003) (holding that, in a reciprocal matter, 

respondent “is not entitled to relitigate or collaterally attack the findings or judgment 

of the [original disciplining court]” and the infirmity of proof exception “is not an 

invitation to the attorney to relitigate in the District of Columbia the adverse findings 

of another court in a procedurally fair setting”) (citations omitted). We also reject 

respondent’s assertion that the Maryland disciplinary proceedings deprived him of 

due process because (1) he had notice of those proceedings and an opportunity to 

respond, and (2) he in fact participated in those proceedings.

PER CURIAM
No. 96-7834.

#### Crite *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari 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

        Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections
(a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each
of the undersigned officers of Windsor Woodmont Black Hawk Resort Corp., a
Colorado corporation (the "Corporation"), does hereby certify, to such officer's
knowledge, that:

        The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004
(the "Form 10-Q") of the Corporation fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and
information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Corporation.



Dated: August 16, 2004              /s/ Jerry L. Dauderman
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Jerry Dauderman
                                    Chairman of the Board and
                                    Chief Executive Officer


Dated: August 16, 2004               /s/ Michael L. Armstrong
                                    --------------------------
                                    Michael L. Armstrong
                                    Executive Vice President and
                                    Chief Financial Officer
-1- 

### STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

MICHELLE CHOJNOWSKI , SHARON STONE, KATHY WITTMAN, and KENNETH WROBEL,

Plaintiffs-Appellants, UNPUBLISHED March 26, 2015

v No. 317655 Livingston Circuit Court

HURON CLINTON METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY, GEORGE PHIFER, and LT. JOHN ORSKEY, LC No. 12-026839-CZ

Defendants-Appellees.

Before: R ONAYNE K RAUSE , P.J., and K. F. K ELLY and S TEPHENS , JJ.

R ONAYNE K RAUSE

, P.J. (concurring)

I concur in affirming the trial court’s grants of summary disp osition in favor of defendants. Based on my reading of the record, 1 it appears that Police Chief George Phifer is likely a bafflingly incompetent and counterproductively over-ag gressive, manager. However, he appears to inflict himself upon his unfortunate subordinates in a sufficiently equal-opportunity manner that I am unable to perceive plaintiffs as having been d iscriminated against on the basis of sex or gender or the subject of retaliation. Being, in the words of the vernacular, a colossal jerk is not actually unlawful pe r se, and being arguably unfit for a particular supervisory job does not necessarily constitute an actionable offense. I therefore respectfully decline to consider whether the specific instances of Phifer’s conduct of which pla intiffs complain constituted adverse employment actions within the meaning of Michigan’s Ell iott Larsen Civil Rights Act (CRA), MCL 37.2101 et seq

.

/s/ Amy Ronayne Krause

1 Because the case is before us on summary disposition, at this stage of the proceedings I have no
idea whether the conclusions I am forced to draw from the avail able evidence submitted are actually correct. This being a court of record, I may not base my conclusions on anything else.
# C_2013225EN.01007503.xml

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/75 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/75

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 May 2013 — Buzil-Werk Wagner v OHIM — Roca Sanitario (Roca)

(Case T-115/12) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Roca - Earlier national figurative mark ROCA and earlier international figurative mark Roca - Relative ground for refusal - Similarity of the goods - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 225/168

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Buzil-Werk Wagner GmbH & Co. KG (Memmingen, Germany) (represented by: D. Waldhauser, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider and M. Lenz, agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Roca Sanitario, SA (Barcelona, Spain)

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 9 January 2012 (Case R 1907/2010-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Roca Sanitario, SA and Buzil-Werk Wagner GmbH & Co. KG.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders Buzil-Werk Wagner GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Buzil-Werk Wagner GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 157, 2.6.2012.

1

---
Exhibit 32.2



RITA Medical Systems, Inc.



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
Annual Report of RITA Medical Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Donald Stewart, Chief
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/  Donald Stewart                                  
|Donald Stewart Chief Financial Officer March 15, 2004
No. 40444.

#### Protest 958324-G of Chili Products Corp., Ltd. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel marjoram leaves similar to those the subject of *Knickerbocker*v. *United States*(T. D. 48959) were held free of duty under paragraph 1722, and thyme leaves similar to those the subject of *Seeck*v. *United States*(T. D. 47383) were held free of duty under paragraph 1669.
# C_2014061EN.01000802.xml

| 1.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 61/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/8

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2014 — Bial-Portela v OHIM — Probiotical (PROBIAL)

(Case T-113/12) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark PROBIAL - Earlier national, international and Community figurative marks, emblem, business name and logo Bial - Relative grounds for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) and 8(4) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2014/C 61/13

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Bial-Portela & Ca, SA (São Mamede do Coronado, Portugal) (represented by: B. Braga da Cruz and J. Pimenta, lawyers)

Applicant:

a

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Probiotical SpA (Novara, Italy) (represented by: I. Kuschel, 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 20 December 2011 (Case R 1925/2010-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Portela & Ca, SA and Probiotical SpA.

a

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Bial-Portela & Ca, SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Bial-Portela & Ca, SA to pay the costs.

a

---

(1)  OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.

1

---
**Exhibit      32**

**Section      1350 Certifications**

|                                  |                                 |                                   |
|---------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|
|                                  |                                 |
|                             |                            |                              |
| Date: June              27, 2007 |                                 | /s/ Douglas              N. Dixon |
|                                  | Douglas              N. Dixon        |
|                                  | Chief              Executive Officer |

|                                  |                                 |                                             |
|---------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|
|                                  |                                 |
|                             |                            |                                        |
| Date: June              27, 2007 |                            | /s/ G.              Dennis              Key |
|                                  | G.              Dennis Key           |
|                                  | Chief              Financial Officer |
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                                  SUBSIDIARIES

         The following sets forth the subsidiaries of U.S. Industries, Inc. but
excludes certain dormant and other subsidiaries not meaningful for presentation
herein. Subsidiaries marked with "(SS)" are domestic significant subsidiaries at
October 1, 2002 and subsidiaries marked with "(F)" are foreign entities. Common
equity ownership in subsidiaries is indicated by indentation.

USI Atlantic Corp. (SS)
    USI American Holdings, Inc. (SS)

USI Global Corp. (SS) (preferred stock owned by USI American Holdings, Inc.)
     JUSI Holdings, Inc. (SS)
              Jacuzzi Inc. (SS)
                       Asteria Company
                       Bathcraft Inc.
                       Gatsby Spas, Inc.
                       Jacuzzi Spain, S.R.L. (Namesaver) (F)
                       Jacuzzi Whirlpool Bath, Inc. (Namesaver)
                       Redmont, Inc.
                       Sundance Spas, Inc.
              Jacuzzi Asia Pacific Pty Ltd. (Namesaver) (F)
              KLI, Inc.
              PH Property Development Company
                       USI Properties, Inc.
              Rexair Holdings, Inc.
                       Rexair, Inc.
              USI Capital, Inc.
     USI Mayfair Limited (F)
              USI Overseas Holdings Limited (F)
                       Jacuzzi (Chili) S.A. (F)
                       Jacuzzi Europe S.P.A. (F)
                                Jacuzzi Investments Ltd. (F)
                                Jacuzzi (Ireland) Ltd. (F)
                                Jacuzzi Whirlpool GmbH (F)
                       Jacuzzi Singapore Pte Ltd (F)
                       Jacuzzi Universal S.A. (49%) (F)
                       Val Industria e Commercio Ltda. (F)
                                Jacuzzi do Brazil Industria e Commercio Ltda.(F)
                       USI Canada Inc. (F)
                                BB Investments Ltd. (F)
                                Jacuzzi Leisure Products Inc. (F)
              USI Plumbing PLC (F)
                       The Spring Ram Corporation PLC (F)
                                Astracast Plc (F)
                                Jacuzzi UK Group plc (F)
                                        SSP holdings Ltd. (F)
                                               Stainless Steel Products Ltd. (F)
                                Silverdale Ceramics Ltd. (F)
                                Spring Ram Bathrooms PLC (F)
                                Spring Ram Corporation Overseas Ltd. (F)
                                        Astracast GmbH (F)
                                Spring Ram Holdings SAS (F)
                                        Les Aeliers de la Motte S.A. (F)
Zurn Industries, Inc. (SS)
    Eljer Industries, Inc.
              Eljer Plumbingware, Inc.
                       United States Brass Corporation
    Zurco, Inc.
    Zurn Export, Inc.
    Zurn Industries Limited (F)
**Exhibit 31.1**CertificationsI, Gary Allhusen, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2006, of Caneum, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit 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 in thisreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed underour supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the small businessissuer, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly duringthe period in which this report is beingprepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the smallbusiness issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in thesmall business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during thesmall business issuer’s most recent fiscalquarter (the small business issuer’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, thesmall business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting;5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe small business issuer’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant rolein the small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting.Date: November 22, 2006
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7126

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff- Appellee,

v. DENNIS ALLEN BREWER, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis III, Senior District Judge. (1:91-cr-00342-TSE-1)

Submitted: October 21, 2008 Decided: October 29, 2008

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dennis Allen Brewer, Appellant Pro Se. Beth Nicole Gibson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Dennis Allen Brewer seeks to appeal the district court’s order reducing his sentence from 360 months’ imprisonment to 324 months’ imprisonment under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3582 (West 2000 & Supp. 2008). In criminal cases, the defendant must file the notice of appeal within ten days after the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A); see United

States v. Alvarez , 210 F.3d 309, 310 (5th Cir. 2000) (holding that § 3582 proceeding is criminal in nature and ten-day appeal period applies). With or without a motion, upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause, the district court may grant an extension of up to thirty days to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4); United States v. Reyes , 759 F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 1985). The district court entered its order on April 25, 2008. The notice of appeal was filed on June 19, 2008. Because Brewer failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# C_2013147EN.01003401.xml

| 25.5.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 147/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 147/34

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 6 March 2013 — Scheefer v Parliament

(Case F-41/12) (1)

1

(Civil service - Temporary staff - Termination of a temporary staff contract of indefinite duration - Legitimate reason)

2013/C 147/63

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Séverine Scheefer (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: R. Adam and P. Ketter, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: V. Montebello-Demogeot and M. Ecker, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application to annul the Parliament’s decision to terminate the applicant’s temporary staff contract of indefinite duration and an application for damages.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ms Scheefer to bear her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Scheefer to bear her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 12.5.2012, p. 38.

1

---