alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Caneum, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned principal executive officer and principal financial officer
of the Company, hereby 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 results
          of operations of the Company.


Date:  May 15, 2006

/s/ Sukhbir Singh Mudan
Sukhbir Singh Mudan, President and Treasurer
(Principal executive officer
and principal financial officer)
Case No. 6,990.

#### HYSLOP et al. v. JONES.

[3 McLean, 96.] 1

Circuit Court, D. Michigan.

Oct. Term, 1842.

Negotiable Instrument — Notice to Indorser— How to be Given.

1. A personal notice of the demand and refusal or payment of a note, to charge the in-dorser, may be served at any place. And if it be proved that it was given at one place or another, it is sufficient

[Cited in Terbell v. Jones, 15 Wis. 256.]

2. Where the indorser lives in the city, the notice must be served on him personally, or at his place of business or residence.

[Cited in Manchester Bank v. Fellows, 28 N. H. 310.3

3. But a notice deposited in the post office, which was in fact received by defendant in due time, is sufficient.

[Cited in Manchester Bank v.. Fellows, 28 N. H. 311; Cabot Bank v. Warner, 92 Mass. (10 Allen) 524.]

4. An averment in the declaration that the note when due was presented to the bank for payment, to wit, 23d of July, 1841, — the words from, to wit, &c., were held to be surplusage.

[This was an action at law by Hyslop and Hyslop against Jones.]

Douglass & Walker, for plaintiffs.

Mr. Jay, for defendant.

OPINION OF THE COURT. This suit is brought against the defendant as an indorser of two promissory notes. Mr. Wells, the notary public states, that the first note for one thousand dollars becoming due the 3d of July, 1840, was presented to the bank on that day for payment, and was not paid; and that he gave notice to the uefendant personally, at his residence or at his place of business. The second note became due the 3d of July, 1841. The declaration averred that the note was presented at the bank when due, to wit, the 23d of July, 1S41. After making demand of payment at the bank, the notary states that he hunted two hours for the defendant’s residence in the city, but could not find it, nor his place of business; and he left the notice in the post office. Defendant on Monday ensuing saw deponent in the street, when they had some conversation on the subject.

Objection being made to the service of no*1143tice of the non-payment of both notes; the court instructed the jury as to the first note, that the notice was sufficient. It was served on the defendant personally in due time, either at his residence or place of business. The service being personal, it is immaterial as to the place of service.

In regard to the notice on the second note, it was not left at the defendant’s place of business or his residence, but in the post office. The leaving the notice in the post office of the city in which the indorser lives, is not sufficient It must be served ombirn personally, left at his place of business or residence. But if by leaving the notice in the post office, the deiemdant, in fact, received it in due time, it is sufficient And of this fact the jury must determine from the evidence. The words, “to wit, the 23d of July, 1841,” in the declaration, the court considered as sur-plusage, and inconsistent with the preceding averment, that the note was presented when due.

The jury found for the plaintiffs.
No. 56682.

protests 180886-K and 164214-K (New York).

#### House of Linen Import Corp. and Schlusselberg Bros. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

The protests were dismissed.
No. 96-7817.

#### Peters *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
No. 96-6009.

#### McLaughlin *v.*United States.

Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

IN RE: GLADYS DICKSON, AN ALLEGED 

INCAPACITATED PERSON

PETITION OF: DONNA L. BREWER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 74 MM 2020

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 22nd day of May, 2020, the Petition for Leave to File Petition for 

Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is DENIED.
Webinar Attendees: Test Procedure - Conventional Cooking Products with Induction Heating Technology MeetingMeeting Date: Monday, March 4, 2013Name Title Organization Street City State Zip Phone Fax EmailJames, Brian Project Manager Southern California Edison (SCE) 6042 N. Irwindale AvenueSuite BIrwindale CA 91733 626-633-7125 626-633-7197 brian.james@sce.comMcGonagle, Michael N/A GE Appliances GE Appliance Park, AP2-2C-61Louisville KY 40225 502-452-5492 N/A m.mcgonagle@ge.comMouw, Nathan A. Sr. Manager,Government RelationsWhirlpool Corporation 2000 N M-63, MD3005 BentonHarborMI 49022 269-923-3324 269-923-4652 nathan_a_mouw@whirlpool.comReis, Callie Consultant Navigant Consulting, Inc. 77 S. Bedford Street, Suite400Burlington MA 01803 781-270-8326 N/A callie.reis@navigant.com
# C_2012235EN.01000701.xml

| 4.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/7

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 21 May 2012 — Salzburger Flughafen GmbH v Umweltsenat

(Case C-244/12)

2012/C 235/13

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Salzburger Flughafen GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Umweltsenat

Defendant:

Party: Landesumweltanwalt von Salzburg

Party:

Further party: Bundesministerin für Verkehr, Innovation und Technologie

Further party:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985, (1) as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, (2) preclude a national rule by which it is established that an environmental impact assessment for infrastructure works (not concerning the runway) at an airport, that is the construction of a terminal and the extension of the airport site to construct further facilities (in particular hangars, equipment buildings and parking areas), shall only be carried out if the annual number of aircraft movements is anticipated to increase by no less than 20 000?
  In the event that Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985, (1) as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, (2) preclude a national rule by which it is established that an environmental impact assessment for infrastructure works (not concerning the runway) at an airport, that is the construction of a terminal and the extension of the airport site to construct further facilities (in particular hangars, equipment buildings and parking areas), shall only be carried out if the annual number of aircraft movements is anticipated to increase by no less than 20 000?

1

2

In the event that Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

| 2. | In the absence of relevant national provisions, does Directive 85/337 require and allow for the direct application of its provisions to assess (taking due account of the objectives thereby pursued and the criteria set out in Annex III thereto) the environmental impact of a project — specified in Question 1 — which is covered by Annex II? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the absence of relevant national provisions, does Directive 85/337 require and allow for the direct application of its provisions to assess (taking due account of the objectives thereby pursued and the criteria set out in Annex III thereto) the environmental impact of a project — specified in Question 1 — which is covered by Annex II?

---

(1)  Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40.

1

(2)  Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5.

2

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 11, 2009 

l0831 

Order 

 

September 11, 2009 

138731 & (56) 

 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 138731 

 COA: 281383 

Oakland CC: 2006-211804-FH 

PERNICIOUS LEE CRAIG, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 5, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to 

remand is DENIED.
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1461 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to clarify the Food 

and Drug Administration’s jurisdiction over certain tobacco products, 

and to protect jobs and small businesses involved in the sale, manufacturing and distribution of traditional and premium cigars. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 1, 2011 

Mr. NELSON of Florida (for himself and Mr. RUBIO) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to 

clarify the Food and Drug Administration’s jurisdiction 

over certain tobacco products, and to protect jobs and 

small businesses involved in the sale, manufacturing and 

distribution of traditional and premium cigars. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Traditional Cigar Man5 ufacturing and Small Business Jobs Preservation Act of 

6 2011’’. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1461 IS

1 SEC. 2. LIMITATION OF AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO 

2 PREMIUM CIGARS. 

3 (a) EXCEPTION FOR TRADITIONAL LARGE AND PRE4 MIUM CIGARS.—Section 901(c) of the Federal Food, 

5 Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 387a(c)) is amend6 ed— 

7 (1) in paragraph (2), in the heading, by insert8 ing ‘‘FOR CERTAIN TOBACCO LEAF’’ after ‘‘AUTHOR9 ITY’’; and 

10 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

11 ‘‘(3) LIMITATION OF AUTHORITY FOR CERTAIN

12 CIGARS.— 

13 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The provisions of this 

14 chapter (except for section 907(d)(3)) shall not 

15 apply to traditional large and premium cigars. 

16 ‘‘(B) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing 

17 in this chapter shall be construed to grant the 

18 Secretary authority to promulgate regulations 

19 on any matter that involves traditional large 

20 and premium cigars. 

21 ‘‘(C) TRADITIONAL LARGE AND PREMIUM

22 CIGAR DEFINED.—For purposes of this para23 graph, the term ‘traditional large and premium 

24 cigar’— 

25 ‘‘(i) means any roll of tobacco that is 

26 wrapped solely in leaf tobacco, contains no 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1461 IS

1 filter, and weighs at least 6 pounds per 

2 1,000 count; and 

3 ‘‘(ii) does not include a cigarette (as 

4 such term is defined by section 900(3)) or 

5 a little cigar (as such term is defined by 

6 section 900(11)).’’. 

7 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 919(b) of 

8 the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 

9 387s(b)) is amended— 

10 (1) in paragraph (2)(B)(II), by inserting ‘‘, but 

11 excluding traditional large and premium cigars (as 

12 such term is defined under section 901(c)(3))’’ be13 fore the period; and 

14 (2) in paragraph (5), by inserting ‘‘subject to 

15 section 901(c)(3),’’ before ‘‘if a user fee’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
^ 

### •M^PORTATIO N SERVE D JANUAR Y31 , 201 1 <- i OPEH/VTl^ ^ m'^ \P 2

^ 3 8

U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC E O FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D C IN TH E MATTE RO F 

### MILA N INSTITUT E O FCOSMETOLOG Y

FA A DOCKE T No . CP10SO000 9 (Civi l Penalt y Case ) DM S No . FAA-2010-062 9 ORDE RO FDISMISSA L O n Jul y 30 , 2010 , th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n (hereinafte r referre dt o a s "Complainant" ) file daComplaint . O n Jul y 12 , 2010 , Responden t Mila n Institut e of Cosmetolog y (hereinafte r "Respondent" ) ha drequeste dahearing . O n Januar y 28 , 2011 , Complainan t

withdre w it s Complaint , citin g settlement . 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.21 5 states : "A t an y tim e befor e o r

durin g ahearing , an agenc y attorne y may withdra w acomplain t o r part y ma y withdra w areques t for ahearin g withou t th e consen t

of th e administrativ e law judge . I f an agenc y attorne y withdraw s th e complain t

o r apart y withdraw s th e reques t for ahearin g ein

dth e answer , th e administrativ e la w judg e shal l dismis s th e proceeding s unde r thi s subpart withprejudice. " WHEREFORE , th e withi n file dWithdrawa l of Complain t

havin g bee n rea dan d considered , i t

i s ORDERE D a s follows : 1 . Complainant' s Withdrawa l of Complain t

b e an di s hereb y granted ; an d 2 . Thi s proceedin g b e an di s hereb y dismisse dwithprejudice .iiliiiiiiil a 

### m i

s o ORDERED .



### Richar dC . Goodwi

n U.S . Administrativ e La

w Judg e Attachmen t - Servic e Lis t

^ - .FA A Docke t No . CP10SO000 9 (Civi l Penalt y Action ) SERVIC E LIS T ORIGINA L& ON E COP Y Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Buildin g - Suit e 2W1000 '

ON E COP Y Stephe n T . Chema , II , Esq . Pete r S . Leyton , Esq . Ritzert & Leyton , PC , Respondent' s Counse l 1135 0 Rando mHill s Road , Suit e 40 0 Fairfax , V A 2203 0 TEL ; 703-934-266 0 FAX : 703-934-984 0 Gar y Yasud a Milan Institut e o f

Beaut y 172 0 W . Walnu t

Avenu e Visalia , C A 9327 7 Andre aMichell e Harper , Complainant' s Counse l Offic e o f th e Regiona l Counse l Southern Regio n Federal Aviatio n Administratio n P.O . Bo x 2063 6 Atlanta , G A 3032 0 TEL : 404-305-520 0 FAX : 404-305-522 3 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC . Goodwin , Administrativ e Law Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloor , Roo mEl2-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : Attorney-Adviso r 202-366-213 9 Legal Assistan t 202-366-512 1 FAX : 202-366-753 6

' Servic e wa s b y U.S . Mail . Fo

r servic e i n perso n o r b y expedite dcourier , us e th e followin g address : Hearin g Docket , Federa l Aviatio n Administration, 60

0 Independenc

e Avenue, S.W. , Wilbu

r Wrigh t Buildin g - Roo m 2014 , Washington

, D C 20591 , Attention : Hearin

g Docke t Cler k AGC-430.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

FORD MOTOR COMPANY AND

THE SEWELL FAMILY OF

COMPANIES,INC.

,

Appellant s

,

V.

MARY TARANGO, INDIVIDUALLY

AND AS SURVIVING SPOUSE OF

MANUAL GASTON TARANGO,

DECEASED; MARISSA TARANGO,

et al

. , Appellee s

. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 4

- 00 171

- CV

Appeal from the

143 rd Judicial District Court

of Reeves C ounty, Texas

(TC# 12

- 07

- 20190

- CVR )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before the Court is a joint motion filed by the parties to dismiss the appeal

pursuant to T EX .R.A PP .P. 42.1 because the dispute between them has been resolved

. We grant

the motion and dismiss the appeal. The joint motion to dismiss does not address costs.

Accordingly, costs of the appeal are taxed against Appellants. See T EX .R.A PP .P. 42.1 (d) (absent

agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs against the appellant)

.

September 23, 2015

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rod riguez, and Hughes, JJ.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SEC. 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002.

 

In connection with the quarterlyReport of IWT Tesoro Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB/A for the quarterended September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Henry J. Boucher, Jr.,Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sec.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

 

(1)           The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresult of operations of the Company.

 

The foregoingcertification shall not be deemed to be filed for the purposes of Section 18of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 or otherwise subject to liabilityunder this section.  This certificationshall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under theSecurities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act except to the extent that this Exhibit 32.1is expressly incorporated by reference in any such filing.

 
| Dated: August 30, 2005 | /s/ Henry J. Boucher, Jr. |   |
|-----------------------------|--------------------------------|--------|
|                        | Henry J. Boucher, Jr.     |
|                        | Chief Executive Officer        |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 has been provided to the Company and will beretained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

 

----
# C_2014045EN.01004403.xml

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/44

---

Order of the General Court of 25 November 2013 — Shark v OHIM — Monster Energy (UNLEASH THE BEAST!)

(Case T-217/12) (1)

1

2014/C 45/77

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 217, 21.7.2012.

1

---
# C_2012319EN.01001901.xml

| 20.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/19

---

Action brought on 10 August 2012 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-87/12)

2012/C 319/36

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal and S. Orlandi, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the Commission’s decision to limit the extension period of the applicant’s contract

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the Commission’s decision of 18 November 2011 in so far as it limits the extension period of the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff to 31 March 2012; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Commission’s decision of 18 November 2011 in so far as it limits the extension period of the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff to 31 March 2012;

| — | order the defendant to pay one euro provisionally for the damage suffered by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay one euro provisionally for the damage suffered by the applicant;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In connection with the quarterly report of Global Realty  Development Corp.
(the  "Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period  ending  June 30, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Robert Kohn, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

     (2)  The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Company.



Date:  August 14, 2006                   By: /s/ Robert Kohn
                                         -------------------
                                         Robert Kohn
                                         Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 31.1CertificationsI, Suki Mudan, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2007, of Caneum, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit 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 inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report; 4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly duringthe period in which this report is being prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case ofan annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting;5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small businessissuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent functions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting.    Date: November 14, 2007