alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
---

CONSENT OF AUTHOR

|July 27 , 2011          
|------------------------
|                        
|                        
|                        
|Pacific Rim Mining Corp.
|#1050  625 Howe Street 
|Vancouver, BC           
|V6C 2T6                 
|                        
|Dear Sirs/Mesdames:     

|Re: | Pacific Rim Mining Corporation
|--- | ------------------------------
|    | Consent                       

The undersigned hereby consents to being named in the Annual
Report on Form 20-F for the year ended April 30, 2011 (the Form 20-F).

I confirm that I have read the Form 20-F and have no reason to
believe that there are any misrepresentations in the information contained
therein or that the written disclosure contains any misrepresentation, confirm
that the information contained therein accurately represents the information
that supports the written disclosure and confirm that such matters are within my
knowledge as a result of the services performed by me.

Sincerely,

William Gehlen

William Gehlen

---
# C_2014388EN.01001202.xml

| 3.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 388/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 388/12

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2014 — Sanofi v OHIM — GP Pharm (GEPRAL)

(Case T-493/12) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Community - Word mark GEPRAL - Earlier international word mark DELPRAL - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2014/C 388/14

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Sanofi SA (Paris, France) (represented by: C. Hertz-Eichenrode, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: GP Pharm SA (Sant Quinti de Mediona, Spain)

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 5 September 2012 (Case R 201/2012-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Sanofi SA and GP Pharm SA.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 5 September 2012 (Case R 201/2012-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Sanofi SA and GP Pharm SA; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 5 September 2012 (Case R 201/2012-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Sanofi SA and GP Pharm SA;

| 2. | Orders OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.

1

---
No. 96-5907.

#### Olachea-Jimenes *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# C_2013252EN.01004501.xml

| 31.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/45

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 12 June 2013 — Bogusz v Frontex

(Case F-5/12) (1)

1

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Frontex staff - Amendment to the conditions under which the probationary period progressed laid down in Article 14 of the CEOS - Dismissal at the end of the probationary period - Setting objectives - Ground raised for the first time at the hearing)

2013/C 252/76

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Bogusz (Dobroszyce, Poland) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Frontex (represented by: S. Vuorensola and H. Caniard, acting as Agents, and A. Duron and D. Waelbroeck, lawyers)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Civil service — Application for the annulment of the decision of Frontex imposing a penalty on the applicant and the decision dismissing him.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay one quarter of the costs incurred by Mr Bogusz; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay one quarter of the costs incurred by Mr Bogusz;

| 3. | Orders Mr Bogusz to bear three quarters of his own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Mr Bogusz to bear three quarters of his own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 133, 5.5.2012, p.29.

1

---
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should

not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in

5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 9, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 05-10103

Summary Calendar

 

JOSE ANGEL VASQUEZ-CRUZ,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 AND THE IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

Respondents-Appellees,

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

 for the Northern District of Texas

(USDC No. 1:04-CV-119-C)

_________________________________________________________

Before REAVLEY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Angel Vasquez-Cruz appeals the district court’s dismissal of his petition

for habeas corpus for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm for the following reasons:
1. Section 1252(b)(5) of Title 8 is the exclusive statutory method of

determining Vasquez-Cruz’s claim of citizenship; and this claim must be brought as

a petition for review of a final order of removal in this Court. Petitioner failed to

assert his claim of United States national status in this Court within thirty days of

the final order of removal. See U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1). In fact, Vasquez-Cruz

formally waived his right to appeal the February 20, 2002 immigration judge’s order

of removal and was removed to Mexico on February 21, 2002. The thirty-day

deadline for filing a petition for review of a final order of removal is jurisdictional. 

8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Navarro-Miranda v. Ashcroft, 330 F.3d 672, 676 (5th Cir.

2003). 

2. Because we could have determined Vaquez-Cruz’s claim on direct review,

and he failed to pursue that avenue of relief before filing his habeas petition in the

district court, dismissal of his habeas petition is appropriate. See Lee v. Gonzales,

410 F.3d 778, 785 (5th Cir. 2005). 

AFFIRMED.
## State of N ew York Su p reme Cou rt, A p p ellate Division Third J u dicial Dep artment Decided and Entered: October 30, 2014 5 18640

________________________________ In the Matter of the Claim of HOWARD BLOCK, Respondent. MICHAEL H. SUSSMAN, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Appellant. COMMISSIONER OF LABOR, Respondent.

________________________________ Calendar Date: September 16, 2014 Before: Lahtinen, J.P., Stein, McCarthy, Rose and Egan Jr., JJ.

__________ Michael H. Sussman, Goshen, appellant pro se. Francis J. Smith, Albany, for Howard Block, respondent.

__________ Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 23, 2013, which ruled that claimant was entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits. Decision affirmed. No opinion. Lahtinen, J.P., Stein, McCarthy, Rose and Egan Jr., JJ., concur.-2- 518640

ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
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

VIDEO INFORMATION

** Details

** Share

# Historic uniform change for female Marines; ‘there will be no doubts that they are U.S. Marines in the dress blue uniform’

By Kaitlin Kelly, MCSC Office of Public Affairs and CommunicationMarine Corps Systems Command

                MARINE CORPS BASE QUANTICO, Va.  –              *Editor's note: The original story can be viewed on the Marine Corps Systems Command website.*

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

dress bluesfemale dress bluesMarinesservice dressuniformsMarine Corps Systems Command
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 report on Form 10-Q of Advanced Technologies Group, Ltd.
(the "Company") for the fiscal quarter ended October 31, 2010 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "report"), the
undersigned, Alex Stelmak, Chief Executive Officer, Chairman of the Board and
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies 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.

Date: December 15, 2010

                                           /s/ Alex Stelmak
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Alex Stelmak
                                           Chief Executive Officer,
                                           Chairman of the Board and
                                           Chief Financial Officer
Co jsrc.^^oi.ii^'^t- e ,,^- t ^ ^'^ ' v^\5'- ^ t> "?> ^ /O - ^ G Q 9 

Sf4/V PARNELL, GOVERNOR 

OEPARTKIEIIT o r TRANSPORTATION 

AND PUBLIC FACILITIES 

OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER 

3132 CHANNEL DRIVE 

PO Box 112500 

JUNEAU. ALASKA 99611-2500 

FAX: (907) 586-8365 

PHONE: (907) 465-3900 

May 27. 2010 

Dora Johnson, President 

Chaluka Corporation 

POBox 104 

Nikolski, Alaska 99638 

Dear Ms. Jolinson: 

Your recent letter conveys an understandable faistration with the limited access to 

Nikolski, one of the most remote communities in Alaska. I have been an Alaskan pilot 

for many years and fully appreciate the difficulties poor weather conditions pose for small 

aircraft. The challenging weather conditions in the Aleutian Islands can limit flying for 

days or even weeks at a time. This restricted accessibility creates real problems for the 

people and conamunities solely dependent upon these limited flights and weather 

conditions for basic access. 

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has been working towards establishment of a 

non-precision instrument approach procedure to the Nikolski Airport. The issue appears 

to be that adequate weather infonnation is not currently available for this airpoH, which is 

a necessaiy precondition for establishment of this approach procedure. In the future, if 

adequate weather (altimeter) information can be provided, FAA may be able to establish a 

non-precision instmment approach procedure to Nikolski. 

As noted in your letter. Peninsula Airways (PenAir) provides scheduled service to Nikolski 

under an Essential Air Service (EAS) program contract. The Grumman Goose utilized by 

PenAir to provide tliis scheduled service is not equipped with the instrumentation necessary 

to utilize a non-precision instrument approach, if this approach procedure was established 

in the future. If the FAA can establish a non-precision instiument approach procedure to 

Nikolski Airport in the future, this should improve the reliability of access to Nikolski by 

aircraft and pilots with the capability of utilizing the non-precision instrument approach 

procedure. 
Dora Johnson Page 2 May 27, 2010 

The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF) has no 

operational authority over the Nikolski Aiiport and has no oversight authority regarding 

EAS prograin contracts. The EAS program is managed by Dennis DeVany, Chief, 

Essential Air SeiTice Division, Office of Aviation Analysis, U.S. Department of 

Transportation. I am foi'warding a copy of your letter to Mr. DeVany as well as 

Mr. Kyle Christiansen of the FAA, so they are aware of your concerns. 

Sincerely, 

von Scheben, P.E., L.S. 

Commissioner 

M.B.A. 

cc: Kyle Christiansen, Senior Airspace Evaluation Program Specialist, FAA (w. F.,KI.) 

Dennis DeVany, Chief, EAS Division, Office of Aviation Analysis, U.S. DOT <UEI,CI./ 

John Moller, Rural Advisor, Office of the Governor 

Randy Ruaro, Deputy Chief of Staff, Office of the Governor
No. 74-935.

#### Chicago Board of Health et al. *v.*Friendship Medical Center, Ltd., et al.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice White would grant certiorari.
No. 48802.

#### Petitions 6337-R, etc., of Frankel Carbon & Ribbon Co. (Denver).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

It was conceded, and the petitioner so testified, that the additional duties were imposed after the petitioner was erroneously advised by a customs official that supplemental duties, payment for which was offered at the time amended entry was filed, were not payable until formal notice of appraisement was received. However, when notice did arrive the additional duties, as well as the supplemental duties, based on the appraised value, had accrued. It was found that the facts and circumstances surrounding entry and appraisement *270clearly supported the contention of the petitioner that there was no intention to defraud the revenue of the United States, or to conceal or misrepresent the facts. The petitions were therefore granted.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. sec. 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of IWT Tesoro Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending June 30 , 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Forrest P. Jordan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sec. 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.

 
| Date:  September 23, 2004 | /s/Forrest P. Jordan    |   |
|--------------------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|                           | Forrest P. Jordan       |
|                           | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
#### Rudolf Lesch Fine Arts, Inc. *v.*United States

No. 6543.

Entry No. 727444, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, October 10, 1941, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., December 1, 1941, etc.

(Decided November 22, 1946)

*John D. Rode*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Kincheloe, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto: .

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
# C_2014462EN.01002202.xml

| 22.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2014 — Kaatsu Japan v OHIM (KAATSU)

(Case T-567/12) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark KAATSU - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Rights of the defence - Article 75, second sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2014/C 462/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Kaatsu Japan Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: M. Edenborough QC)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: V. Melgar and I. Harrington, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 October 2012 (Case R 435/2012-2), relating to an application for registration of the word sign KAATSU as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Kaatsu Japan Co. Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Kaatsu Japan Co. Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 2.3.2013.

1

---
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, April 23, 2019.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, April 23, 2019

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A19D0414. JERRY GIBBY v. ANDREA TOUSIGNANT.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record 

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

17CI823 17CI824 17CI825
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

ROBERT BRIGHT,

Petitioner

v.

PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF

PROBATION AND PAROLE AND

PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 9 EM 2019

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 27th day of February , 2019, the Petition for Leave to File Petition

for Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is DENIED.
No. 56714.

protests 93893-K, etc. (New York).

#### E. R. Squibb & Sons *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of cornmint oil the same in all material respects as that the subject of *A. Maschmeijer, Jr., Inc.*v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 139, C. A. D. 476), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-16-0000536 14-MAY-2019 07:51 AM
No. 74-827.

#### Anderson *v.*United States.

C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.
### Evaluation of streamflow records in Flathead River basin, Montana

By: R.T. Plunkett

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/cir182

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.