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

December 7, 1950

No. 54951.

#### General Hide & Skin Corp. *v.*United States,

protests 66361-K and 92284-K (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the issue herein is the same in all material respects as that presented in *The Otto Gerdau Co.*v. *United States*(21 Cust. Ct. 24, C. D. 1120) and *Mamary Bros., Inc.*v. *United States*(id. 135, C. D. 1142). In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on entries 67467 and 819098.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

HAYDON BUILDING CORPORATION,

Appellant,

v. 

JACIE LYNN GREEN,

Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-23-00073-CV

Appeal from the

41st District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

Cause No. 2015DCV1968

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. We further order that Appellee 

recover from Appellant all costs of appeal for which let execution issue. This decision shall be 

certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 31ST DAY OF JULY 2024.

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

July 31, 2024

Before Alley, C.J., Palafox and Soto, JJ.
Order issued Octoberjte , 1997

In The

Court nf Appeals

3fifUj Ststrtct of Okxas at Dallas

3%%

No. 05-96-OQS^-CR

WAYNE NEAL THORNTON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court No. 6

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. MB94-48351-G

ORDER

Because appellant's brief has not been filed within the time allowed, the trial court

is ORDERED to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant's brief has not been filed

and in this regard to determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, whether

appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal,

and to make appropriate findings and recommendations. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(6).

If the trial court cannot obtain appellant's presence at the hearing, the trial court

shall conduct the hearing in appellant's absence. SeeMeza v. State, 752 S.W.2d 708 (Tex.
App.--Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.)(per curiam).

If appellant is indigent, the trial court is ORDERED to take such measures as may

be necessary to assure effective representation, which may include appointment of new

counsel. We order the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall

include written findings and recommendations, to this Court within sixty (60) days of the

date of this order.

This appeal isABATED to allow the trial courtto comply with the above order. The

appeal shall be reinstated sixty (60) days from the date of this order.

-2-

LINDA THOMAS

CHIEF JUSTICE
##### 



EXHIBIT 32 Certification
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) 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 Nortel Networks
Limited, a Canadian corporation (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge,
that: The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 (the Form 10-Q) of the
Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Dated: March 18, 2005
    /s/ WILLIAM A. OWENSWILLIAM A. OWENSVice Chairman and
Chief Executive OfficerDated: March 18, 2005
    /s/ PETER W. CURRIEPETER W. CURRIEExecutive Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer
**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




In
      connection with the quarterly report of Cyber Defense Systems, Inc. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David
      M. Barnes, Chief Financial Officer, Principal Financial and Accounting 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/
      David M. Barnes








David
      M.
      Barnes


Chief
      Financial Officer,


Principal
      Financial and


Accounting
      Officer





May
      21,
      2007
# C_2016136EN.01002402.xml

| 18.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 136/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 136/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 February 2016 — EGL and Others v Commission

(Case T-251/12) (1)

1

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - International air freight forwarding services - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Price fixing - Surcharges and charging mechanisms affecting the final price - Definition of the market - Effect on trade between Member States - Cooperation - Partial immunity from a fine))

(2016/C 136/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: EGL, Inc. (Houston, Texas, United States), Ceva Freight (UK) Ltd (Ashby de la Zouch, United Kingdom) and Ceva Freight Shanghai Ltd (Shanghai, China) (represented initially by M. Brealey QC, S. Love, Barrister, M. Pullen, D. Gillespie and R. Fawcett-Feuillette, Solicitors, and subsequently by M. Brealey, S. Love, M. Pullen, R. Fawcett-Feuillette and M. Boles, Solicitor, and lastly by M. Brealey and M. Pullen)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and P. Van Nuffel, acting as Agents, and by S. Kingston, Barrister)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2012) 1959 final of 28 March 2012 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39462 — Freight forwarding), in so far as it concerns the applicants or, in the alternative, for variation of the fines imposed on them in that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders EGL, Inc., Ceva Freight (UK) Ltd and Ceva Freight Shanghai Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EGL, Inc., Ceva Freight (UK) Ltd and Ceva Freight Shanghai Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 227, 28.7.2012.

1

---
# C_2014388EN.01001101.xml

| 3.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 388/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 388/11

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 September 2014 — Central Bank of Iran v Council

(Case T-262/12) (1)

1

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Action for annulment - Lis pendens - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence))

2014/C 388/12

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Central Bank of Iran (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: M. Lester, Barrister)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for, in essence, annulment of (i) Council Decision 2012/35/CFSP of 23 January 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 19, p. 22) and Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 58), in so far as they listed or maintained the listing, after review, of the applicant in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39) and (ii) Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning the adoption of restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012 implementing Regulation No 267/2012 (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 16), in so far as they listed or maintained the listing, after review, of the applicant in Annex IX to Regulation No 267/2012.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1), in so far as it listed Central Bank of Iran in Annex IX thereto; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1), in so far as it listed Central Bank of Iran in Annex IX thereto;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the Council of the European Union to bear one half of its own costs and to pay one half of the costs of Central Bank of Iran; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Council of the European Union to bear one half of its own costs and to pay one half of the costs of Central Bank of Iran;

| 4. | Orders Central Bank of Iran to bear one half of its own costs and to pay one half of the costs of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Central Bank of Iran to bear one half of its own costs and to pay one half of the costs of the Council.

---

(1)  OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.

1

---
EXHIBIT 23.2.1

                         Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 No. 333-69951, No. 333-90635) of our report dated December 17, 1999,
with respect to the consolidated financial statements of THINK New Ideas, Inc.
for the year ended December 31, 1998, included in AnswerThink Consulting Group,
Inc.'s Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1999, filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

                                                          /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


New York, New York
March 9, 2000
**Exhibit 21.1**

**INOVIOBIOMEDICAL CORPORATION**

Subsidiaries 

| Subsidiary Name(1)     | ** ** | **Jurisdiction of Organization** |
|------------------------|------------|----------------------------------|
| Genetronics, Inc. |       | Delaware                         |
| Inovio AS              |       | Norway                           |
|                   |       |                             |
|                   |       |                             |
|                   |       |                             |
|                   |       |                             |
|                   |       |                             |
|                   |       |                             |
|                   |       |                             |

----

(1)          In accordance withInstructions (ii) to Exhibit (21) to the Exhibit Table inItem 601 of Regulation S-K, Registrant has omitted from the abovetable one of its subsidiaries because it does not constitute a significantsubsidiary of registrant as of the end of the year covered by this Report.

----
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

# DPMAP Awards Process

By Dana CochraneDLA Land and Maritime People and Culture

                COLUMBUS, Ohio  –              
 

For information about the DPMAP Awards process, please refer to the DLA Director’s Blog post from May 5, 2018 at https://blogs.dla.mil/director/?p=3337

 

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

Community L&MCulture L&MPersonal Development L&MSupervisors L&MTraining L&MLeadership L&Mmanagement L&MProcess Management L&Msenior l
EXHIBIT
32.1


CERTIFICATION


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)





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), the undersigned officer of Interplay
Entertainment Corp., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify
with respect to the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the “10-K Report”) that:





(1)
            the
      10-K 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 10-K Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.








Date:    April
15, 2010


/s/ Hervé
Caen


Hervé
Caen


Chief
Executive Officer and


Interim
Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002     In connection with the quarterly report of Caneum, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10 — QSB forthe quarter ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned principal executive officer and principal financialofficer of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.Date: November 14, 2005/s/ Sukhbir Singh Mudan Sukhbir Singh Mudan, President andTreasurer (Principal executive officerand principal financial officer)
Exhibit 10.21



ADDENDUM TO ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES AGREEMENT



This Addendum (the Addendum) is entered into effective as of January 1, 2006, by and between NORTH CAROLINA
RADIATION THERAPY MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., a North Carolina corporation (MANAGEMENT SERVICES) and RADIATION THERAPY ASSOCIATES OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, P.A., a North Carolina professional corporation (the PA). This
Addendum amends Section 3.1 of the Administrative Services Agreement dated January 1, 2002 between the parties (the Agreement) to adjust the monthly Service Fee of $766,000.00 paid in 2005 to a monthly Service Fee of
$749,333.33, and replaces the Addendum of that same Section dated January 1, 2005.



From and after the date hereof, Section 3.1 shall read as follows:



3.1. Service Fee. For the services to be provided hereunder by MANAGEMENT SERVICES, the PC shall pay to MANAGEMENT SERVICES a
monthly Service Fee of $749,333.33. The parties agree that the Service Fee represents the fair market value of the services provided by MANAGEMENT SERVICES hereunder and that the parties shall meet annually to reevaluate the value of services
provided by MANAGEMENT SERVICES and shall establish the fair market value thereof for purposes of this Section 3.1.



|          |  |                                                              |  |                             
|--------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------ |  | ----------------------------
|Accepted: |  | NORTH CAROLINA RADIATION THERAPY MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.  
|          |  |                                                             
|          |  | By:                                                          |  | /s/ David Koeninger         
|          |  |                                                              |  | David Koeninger             
|          |  |                                                              |  | Vice President and CFO      
|          | 
|Accepted: |  | RADIATION THERAPY ASSOCIATES OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, P.A.
|          |  |                                                             
|          |  | By:                                                          |  | /s/ Daniel E. Dosoretz, M.D.
|          |  |                                                              |  | Daniel E. Dosoretz, M.D.    
|          |  |                                                              |  | Vice President
No. 6382.

#### CHARLES E. JOUBERT vs. XETER REALTY CO., ET AL.

Syllabus.

Act 229 of 1910 permits Appellate Courts to tax costs equitably between the parties.

Appeal from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, Division “D,” No. 98,910. Honorable Porter Parker, Judge.

L. A. Ducros, for appellee in rule.

John Watt, for appellant in rule.

*322Opinion and decree, May 17th, 1915.

Oscar Schreiber, for defendant and appellee.

His Honor, JOHN ST. PAUL,

rendered the opinion and decree of the Court, as follows:

Availing himself of the provisions of Act 10i of 1898, plaintiff sought herein to confirm the title to two distinct pieces of real estate, contradictorily with two distinct defendants.

Having' succeeded as to one piece of property he seeks to tax one defendant with the whole cost of these proceedings.

This he cannot do. The Act of 1898 was intended to save costs, but surely not to operate injustice by charging against one defendant the cost of litigating with another and distinct party and over something with which he has no concern. At any rate Act 229 of 1910: allows this Court to adjust costs equitably between the parties.

But we shall stand on no technicalities. In cases like this we think each defendant should be charged with his proportion only of the costs; in this ease one-half.

It is, therefore, ordered that the judgment appealed from be amended by reducing the amount of costs allowed against appellant from $33.15 to sixteen 60/100 dollars; and as thus amended the judgment is affirmed, costs of appeal to be paid by plaintiff and those of the Court a qua by the appellant.

On Application for Rehearing.

Per Curiam,

Exercising the discretion in us vested by Act 229 of 1910, it is now ordered that the costs of appeal actually *323paid by appellant be divided equally between the appellants and plaintiff, and with this amendment both applications for rehearing are refused.

Opinion and decree, June 30th, 1915.

Rehearing refused.
# C_2016211EN.01006602.xml

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/66

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 26 April 2016 — Claus v Commission

(Case F-101/12) (1)

(2016/C 211/82)

Language of the case: French

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 147, 25/5/2013, p. 36.

---
HomeAboutSite MapContact

Search Help

About

• Staff Bios• Authorizing Legislation• FOIA Requests• Data Sets• Clearinghouse• Internships• Employment• ONDCP Sponsored Sites• Stay Connected• FAQs

Policy

Prevention

Treatment

Market Disruption

Drug Facts

International

State & Local

Publications

Press Room

Information Quality GuidelinesPrivacy PolicySite MapDisclaimerAccessibilityFOIA
Exhibit 10.13
 2009 Base Salaries for Named Executive Officers
 Name and Title
    
    SalaryEdward A. Keible, Jr.
    
    $
    386,000President and Chief Executive OfficerJohn J. Mikulsky
    
    $
    282,000Executive Vice President and Chief Operating OfficerBrett W. Wallace
    
    $
    251,000Executive Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerDavid M. Hall
    
    $
    236,000Senior Vice President and General Manager, Defense & Security ProductsSteven F. Layton
    
    $
    215,000Senior Vice President and General Manager, Telecom ProductsDaniel P. Teuthorn
    
    $
    229,000Senior Vice President and General Manager, Technology
Exhibit 32.1




STATEMENT REQUIRED BY 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




This certificate is being delivered pursuant to the requirements of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 (Mail Fraud) of Title 18 (Crimes and Criminal Procedures) of the United States Code and shall not be relied on by any other person for any other purpose.




In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Internap Network Services Corporation (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, J. Eric Cooney, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certifies that




•
the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




•
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date: March 2, 2010




/s/ J. Eric CooneyJ. Eric CooneyPresident and Chief Executive
Officer