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

                    Trustee's Distribution Statement


THE               THE HOLDERS OF:
BANK OF           Prudential Securities Structured Assets, Inc.
NEW               Receipts on Corporate Securities, Series FDX 1997-1
YORK

In accordance with Article IV, Section 4.2 of the Base Trust Agreement 
dated as of August 28, 1997, The Bank of New York, as Trustee, submits 
the following cash basis statement for the period ending January 1, 1998.

With regard to the January 1, 1998 Distribution Date:

The amount of principal distribution is $499,083.23 and interest 
is $1,476,916.77.

The aggregate stated principal amount of the Term Assets 
are $52,000,000.00 at 7.6%.

The aggregate Certificate Principal Balance is $41,698,538.77.

Underlying Securities held as of January 1, 1998.

Principal Amount         Title of Security
$52,000,000.00           FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION
                         ("FDX")
                         $52,000,000 Aggregate Principal Amount of
                         7.60% Notes Due July 1, 2097


                                   THE BANK OF NEW YORK,
                                   as Trustee

<PAGE>

                    Trustee's Distribution Statement


THE               TO THE HOLDERS OF:
BANK OF           Prudential Securities Structured Assets, Inc.
NEW               Receipts on Corporate Securities, Series FDX 1997-1
YORK

In accordance with Article IV, Section 4.2 of the Base Trust Agreement 
dated as of August 28, 1997, The Bank of New York, as Trustee, submits 
the following cash basis statement for the period ending July 1, 1998.

With regard to the July 1, 1998 Distribution Date:

The amount of principal distribution is $516,551.14 and interest is 
$1,459,448.86.

The aggregate stated principal amount of the Term Assets are 
$52,000,000.00 at 7.6%.

The aggregate Certificate Principal Balance is $41,181,987.63.


Underlying Securities held as of July 1, 1998.

Principal Amount         Title of Security
$52,000,000.00           FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION
                         ("FDX")
                         $52,000,000 Aggregate Principal Amount of
                         7.60% Notes Due July 1, 2097


                                   THE BANK OF NEW YORK,
                                   as Trustee
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 6**  **398**

ANTHONY TOWNSEND , P etitioner

- Appellant ,

v. RENOICE STANCIL , Respondent

- Appellee
. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. Terrence W. Boyle , District Judge. ( 5 :1 2

- hc

- 0 2 086

- BO )

Submitted : July 18, 2013 Decided: July 23, 2013

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD , Circuit Judges.

Dismiss ed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Anthony Townsend , Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina , for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Anthony Townsend seeks to appeal the district court ’ s order d enying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (A) (2006) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “ a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. ” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district cou rt’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demons trate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Townsend has n ot made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Townsend’s motion for appointment of counsel, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability , and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and l egal contentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSE D
DISMISS and Opinion Filed February 27, 2023 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00999-CV 

GENA M. CROW, Appellant 

V. 

NOSHI PROPERTIES, LLC, Appellee 

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. CC-22-02584-A 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Smith, and Breedlove 

Opinion by Justice Breedlove 

Appellant’s brief in this case is overdue. After appellant failed to respond to 

our inquiry regarding the reporter’s record, we ordered the appeal submitted without 

a reporter’s record and for appellant’s brief to be filed by January 17, 2023. By 

postcard dated January 20, 2023, we informed appellant her brief was overdue and 

directed her to file her brief within ten days. We cautioned appellant that failure to 

do so would result in the dismissal of this appeal without further notice. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1). To date, appellant has not filed her brief or otherwise 

corresponded with the Court regarding the status of this appeal. 
 –2– 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8 (a)(1); 42.3(b), 

(c). 

220999F.P05 

 

/Maricela Breedlove/

MARICELA BREEDLOVE 

JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

GENA M. CROW, Appellant 

No. 05-22-00999-CV V. 

NOSHI PROPERTIES, LLC, 

Appellee 

 On Appeal from the County Court at 

Law No. 1, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. CC-22-02584-

A. 

Opinion delivered by Justice 

Breedlove. Justices Partida-Kipness 

and Smith participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is 

DISMISSED. 

Judgment entered February 27, 2023
# C_2015118EN.01002501.xml

| 13.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2015 — Orange v Commission

(Case T-385/12) (1)

1

((State aid - Pensions - Aid for the reform of the arrangements for financing the retirement pensions of civil servants working for France Télécom - Reduction of the compensation to be paid to the State by France Télécom - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market under certain conditions - Advantage - Selective nature - Adverse effect on competition - Rights of the defence))

(2015/C 118/32)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Orange, formerly France Télécom (Paris, France) (represented by: S. Hautbourg and S. Cochard-Quesson, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, D. Grespan and B. Stromsky, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2012/540/EU of 20 December 2011 on State aid C 25/08 (ex NN 23/08) reform of the arrangements for financing the retirement pensions of civil servants working for France Télécom implemented by the French Republic in favour of France Télécom (OJ 2012, L 279, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the action;

| 2) | Orders Orange to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders Orange to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 311, 13.10.2012.

1

---
No. 65802.

#### Unitron Import Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 59/29058, etc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of valances similar in all material respects to those the subject of *D. N. & E. Walter & Co. et al.*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 26, C.D. 2098), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
# C_2013225EN.01008102.xml

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/81 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/81

---

Order of the General Court of 4 June 2013 — Cosma Moden v OHMI — s.Oliver Bernd Freier (COSMA)

(Case T-399/12) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)

2013/C 225/180

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Cosma Moden GmbH & Co. KG (Emsdetten, Germany) (represented by: J. Meyer, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party/parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: s.Oliver Bernd Freier GmbH & Co. KG (Rottendorf, Germany) (represented by: S. Körber and B. Bleifeld, lawyers)

Other party/parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 July 2012 (Case R 2010/2010-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Cosma Moden GmbH & Co. KG and s.Oliver Bernd Freier & Co. KG.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The applicant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal shall bear their own costs and each shall pay half of the costs of the defendant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal shall bear their own costs and each shall pay half of the costs of the defendant.

---

(1)  OJ C 331, 27.10.2012.

1

---
No. 48162.

#### Protests 910938-G, etc., of Albert Adams et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe,, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
#### J. E. Bernard & Co. (Norman Willets Co.) *v.*United States

No. 6872.

Entry No. 3212, etc.

Invoices dated Ilford, England, December 1943, etc.

Certified December 1943, etc.

Entered at Chicago, Ill., February 24, 1944, etc.

(Decided February 14, 1947)

*Wallace & Schwartz (Joseph Schwartz*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

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

Oliver, Presiding 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. '
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2465

NSONSA KISALA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA97-3098-PJM) Submitted: April 29, 1999 Decided: May 5, 1999 Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nsonsa Kisala, Appellant Pro Se. Ralph Michael Smith, SHAWE & ROSENTHAL, Baltimore, Maryland; Susan Z. Haller, JONES, DAY, REAVIS & POGUE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Nsonsa Kisala appeals from the district court’s order grantingsummary judgment in favor of the Defendant in his employment discrimination claim. We have reviewed the record and conclude that Kisala is unable to demonstrate that the Defendant’s proffered legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions were pretext for actual discrimination. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green , 411 U.S. 792, 804 (1973) (providing standard); EEOC v. Clay Printing Co. , 955 F.2d 936, 941 (4th Cir. 1992) (same).Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment, and deny all pending motions. 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.

AFFIRMED
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: EPAfinalizes ... renewable fuel standards.**
 
2011 | 2012 | 2013
 
SuDoc Number:EP 6.52: R 29/
Item Number:0484-E (online)
CGP systemNumber:000929645
 
November 20, 2018
Exhibit No. 32.2
Form 10-QSB
The Quantum Group, Inc.
File No. 000-31727


                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 The Quantum Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending January 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Donald B. Cohen, 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 results of operations of the Company.



Date: March 19, 2004                                 By: /S/ Donald B. Cohen
                                                         ----------------------
                                                         Donald B. Cohen
                                                         Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to The Quantum Group, Inc. and will be retained by The Quantum Group,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
No. 48206.

#### Protests 690235-G, etc., of Katz Berk Hat Co., Inc., et al (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was stipulated that the harvest hats in question are valued at less than $3 per dozen and are similar to those involved in *Caradine*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 69, C. D. 664). In accordance therewith some of them were held dutiable at 25 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1504(b)(5), as claimed, and those entered or withdrawn for consumption subsequent to the effee-*439tive date of the Netherlands Trade Agreement (T. D. 48075) were held dutiable at 12)4 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1504(b) (5) and said trade agreement, as claimed.
# C_2014135EN.01003701.xml

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/37

---

Order of the General Court of 7 March 2014 — Versalis v Commission

(Joined Cases T-241/12 and T-210/13) (1)

1

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Butadiene rubber and emulsion styrene butadiene rubber market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Partial annulment and alteration by the General Court of the Commission’s decision - Reopening of the procedure - New statement of objections - Closure of the procedure - No need to adjudicate))

2014/C 135/47

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Versalis SpA (San Donato Milanese, Italy) (represented by: F. Moretti, L. Nascimbene and M. Siragusa, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka, G. Conte, R. Striani and T. Vecchi, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

In Case T-241/12, application for annulment of the Commission’s decision contained in a letter of 23 April 2012, informing the applicant of the Commission’s intention to reopen the procedure and to adopt a new statement of objections and, in Case T-210/13, application for annulment of Commission decisions C(2013) 1200 final of 26 February 2013 and C(2013) 1199 final of 27 February 2013 to reopen the procedure and to send the applicant a new statement of objections in Case AT. 40032–BR/ESBR — Recidivism, following the partial annulment by the General Court of Commission Decision C(2006) 5700 final of 29 November 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.638 — Butadiene Rubber and Emulsion Styrene Butadiene Rubber).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | Cases T-241/12 and T-210/13 are joined for the purposes of the order. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Cases T-241/12 and T-210/13 are joined for the purposes of the order.

| 2. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present actions. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present actions.

| 3. | Versalis SpA and the European Commission shall each bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Versalis SpA and the European Commission shall each bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 227, 28.7.2012.

1

---
No. 46468.

#### Protest 54564-K of Greenberg & Josefsberg (New York).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of clothes and hat brushes similar to those the subject of *United States*v. *Heinrich Herrmann & Weiss*(26 C. C. P. A. 292, C. A. D. 30). The claim at 50 percent under paragraph 15.06 was therefore sustained.
No. 47034.

#### Protest 37964-K of B. H. Old & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

The record showed that the merchandise consists of dried ginger, the product of Sierra Leone, and that some of the bags which were-the immediate containers of the ginger were marked “Sa. Leone,” instead of the-full name, Sierra Leone. In accordance with Abstract 44088, which was incorporated herein, the court held that the marking “Sa. Leone” was sufficient to-indicate the country of origin. The protest was therefore sustained.
**Exhibit
      32**





**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 this Annual Report on Form 10-K of The Ridgewood Power Growth
      Fund (the “Fund”) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of
      the undersigned officers of the Fund hereby certifies, pursuant to 18
      U.S.C. (section) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (section) 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:





(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 Fund.







/s/
                Randall D. HolmesName:
            Randall
                D. HolmesTitle:
            Chief
                Executive OfficerDated:
            December
                14, 2007








/s/
                Jeffrey H. StrasbergName:
            Jeffrey
                H. StrasbergTitle:
            Executive
                Vice President andChief
                Financial OfficerDated:
            December
                14, 2007
No. 56769.

protests 153411-K and 168716-K (Ogdensburg).

#### Railway Express Agency *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
# C_2014235EN.01001602.xml

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

21.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 June 2014 — European Drinks SA v OHIM — Alexandrion Grup Romania (Dracula Bite and DRACULA BITE)

(Case T-495/12 to T-497/12) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative marks Dracula Bite and DRACULA BITE - Earlier national figurative mark Dracula - Absence of genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2014/C 235/21

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Drinks SA (Ştei, Romania) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: SC Alexandrion Grup Romania Srl (Pleasa, Romania) (represented by: I. Niculeasa, G. Trantea and B. Mărculet, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Three actions brought against three decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 September 2012 (Cases R 680/2011-4, R 682/2011-4 and R 679/2011-4), concerning three opposition proceedings between European Drinks SA and SC Alexandrion Grup Romania Srl.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Joins Cases T-495/12, T-496/12 and T-497/12 for the purposes of the judgment; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Joins Cases T-495/12, T-496/12 and T-497/12 for the purposes of the judgment;

| 2) | Dismisses the actions; |
| --- | --- |

2)

Dismisses the actions;

| 3) | Orders European Drinks SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3)

Orders European Drinks SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.

1

---
October 17, 1949

No. 7749.

#### Bert *Friedberg & Co.*v. *United States.*

Entered at San Francisco, Calif. Reap. Dec. 7584. Motion by plaintiff.