alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### OGDEN v. OFFERMAN.

December 5, 1836.

*'Rule to show cause why judgment, lye., for want of sufficient affidavit of defence.*

An affidavit of defence under the act of 28th March, 1835, should state facts with reasonable certainty, so as to exclude evasion or duplicity, and should omit no material element necessary to constitute a good defence.

Thus, in answer to a claim for rent on a lease, it is not sufficient that the defendant states, that the defendant, the lessee, has not occupied the premises, but the plaintiff, the lessor, has, for a part of the time, without stating the absence of consent on part of the defendant, or alleging ouster, eviction, surrender, or adverse interruption of possession, amounting to a suspension or forfeiture of the rent.

THIS was an action on a written lease, by plaintiff to defendant, of certain real estate, in which the defendant covenanted to pay a certain rent to the plaintiff in money. The plaintiff filed a copy of the lease, and the defendant according to the act of 28th March, 1835, filed an affidavit of defence, the substance of which was as follows, viz.: that “ he, said defendant, had not occupied the premises for which the plaintiff claimed rent for the next preceding year or thereabouts; and from information he had received, he verily and truly believed, that the plaintiff had occupied the premises for which rent was claimed (during a greater portion of the period for which rent was claimed) from time to time, according to his convenience or wants,”

The plaintiff obtained this rule to show cause.

*Price,*for the rule.

*I. JVorris,*contra.

*41Cases cited: Hill *v.*Bramall, 1 *Miles*352; Knox *v.*Reeside, *Ibid,*294 ; Kessler *v.*McConachy, 1 *Raivle*435, 441; Bennet *v.*Bittle, 4 *Rawle*339, 343.

Per Curiam.

An affidavit of defence should exhibit facts on which the law may be pronounced, with such reasonable certainty as to exclude the possibility of evasion or duplicity, and should leave nothing to inference as to the *facts*to be drawn by the court, which may be necessary to establish a defence. The act of assembly, which prescribes that the defendant shall state the “«ature and character” of his defence, means, that he shall omit no material element necessary to constitute a legal answmr to the plaintiff’s demand. This rule being the test, and applying it to this case, it is clear that the affidavit is defective. In order to enable the defendant to resist this claim, he should have affirmatively stated such facts as are requisite in point of law to cause a suspension or forfeiture of the rent. This does not appear in the affidavit. His allegation that he has not *occupied*the premises amounts to nothing. The statement that plaintiff occupied them, does not say that such occupation was not permissive on his part or against his consent. He alleges neither ouster or eviction, surrender or adverse interruption of possession. All that the defendant states may be true, yet unless he negatives other conditions which may exist, his present allegations make up no defence.

Rule absolute.
No. 96-653.

#### Baker et al. *v.*General Motors Corp.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari granted.
# C_2014253EN.01002901.xml

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/29

---

Order of the General Court of 4 June 2014 — Axa Versicherung v Commission

(Case T-526/12) (1)

1

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Implied refusal of access - Express decision adopted after the action was brought - No longer any interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate))

2014/C 253/41

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Axa Versicherung AG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: C. Bahr, S. Dethof and A. Malec, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Krämer and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for annulment of the implied decision of the Commission to refuse the applicants access to documents from the case-file in Case COMP/39.125 (Car glass).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

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

1)

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

| 2) | There is no need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene of AGC Glass Europe SA, AGC Automotive Europe SA and AGC Glass Germany GmbH. |
| --- | --- |

2)

There is no need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene of AGC Glass Europe SA, AGC Automotive Europe SA and AGC Glass Germany GmbH.

| 3) | The European Commission is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by AXA Versicherung AG. |
| --- | --- |

3)

The European Commission is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by AXA Versicherung AG.

| 4) | AGC Glass Europe, AGC Automotive Europe and AGC Glass Germany are ordered to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4)

AGC Glass Europe, AGC Automotive Europe and AGC Glass Germany are ordered to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 32, 2.2.2013.

1

---
| 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. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated: May 16, 2011                                      |   |   |   |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
|                                                     |   |   |   |   |
|                                                     |   |   |   |   |
| /s/ Rik J. Deitsch                                       |   |   |   |   |
| Rik J. Deitsch                                           |   |   |   |   |
| Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer |   |   |   |   |

----
Case *No.*14,074.

#### TODD v. The EUPHRATES.

[Nowhere reported; opinion not now accessible.]
<PAGE>
                         ADVANCED ACCESSORY SYSTEMS, LLC
           EXHIBIT 12.1 - STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF RATIOS -
                           FIXED CHARGE COVERAGE RATIO
              FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2001, 2000 AND 1999
                          (DOLLAR AMOUNTS IN THOUSANDS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                     DECEMBER 31,
                                                                     2001               2000              1999
                                                                 -------------      ------------      ------------
<S>                                                              <C>                <C>               <C>
Pre-tax income from
  continuing operations.....................................     $      2,996       $      7,515      $      5,395
                                                                 ------------       ------------      ------------

Fixed Charges:
  Interest expense and amortization
   of debt discount and premium on all
   indebtedness.............................................            17,684             17,950            17,453

Rentals (1).................................................             2,713              2,711             1,390
                                                                 -------------      -------------     -------------

Total fixed charges.........................................            20,397             20,661            18,843
                                                                 -------------      -------------     -------------

Earnings before income taxes,
  minority interest and fixed charges.......................     $      23,393      $      28,176     $      24,238
                                                                 =============      =============     =============

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges..........................             1.15x              1.36x             1.29x
                                                                 =============      =============     =============

</TABLE>

----------

     (1) Amount included in fixed charges for rentals is considered by
management to be a reasonable approximation of the interest factor.



                                       62
CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO




18 U.S.C.
§1350,




AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO




SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002






In
connection with the Annual Report of Rubicon Minerals Corporation
(the “Company”) on Form 40-F for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Robert G. Lewis, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. §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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.






March 31,
2009                                                                /s/Robert
G.
Lewis




Robert
G. Lewis


Chief
Financial Officer




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Rubicon Minerals Corporation and will be retained by Rubicon Minerals
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
No. 49473.

#### Protest 47410-K of F. W. Woolworth Co. (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the figures in question are in chief value of lead, not plated, similar to those the subject of *United States*v. *Woolworth*(28 C. C. P. A. 196, C. A. D. 145), which record was incorporated herein, the claim that they are dutiable at 3 cents per pound, but not less than 22)4 nor more than 45 percent ad valorem, under paragraph 397 as amended by the United Kingdom Trade Agreement, .was sustained.
IC 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 1947 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 7, 2012 

Referred to the Committee on Agriculture and in addition to the Committee 

on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

AN ACT 

To prohibit attendance of an animal fighting venture, and 

for other purposes. 

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


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
2 

S 1947 RFH 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Animal Fighting Spec3 tator Prohibition Act of 2011’’. 

4 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON ATTENDING AN ANIMAL FIGHT OR 

5 CAUSING A MINOR TO ATTEND AN ANIMAL 

6 FIGHT. 

7 Section 26 of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 

8 2156) is amended— 

9 (1) in subsection (a)— 

10 (A) in the heading, by striking ‘‘SPON11 SORING OR EXHIBITING AN ANIMAL IN’’ and in12 serting ‘‘SPONSORING OR EXHIBITING AN ANI13 MAL IN, ATTENDING, OR CAUSING A MINOR TO

14 ATTEND’’; 

15 (B) in paragraph (1)— 

16 (i) in the heading, by striking ‘‘IN

17 GENERAL’’ and inserting ‘‘SPONSORING OR

18 EXHIBITING’’; and 

19 (ii) by striking ‘‘paragraph (2)’’ and 

20 inserting ‘‘paragraph (3)’’; 

21 (C) by redesignating paragraph (2) as 

22 paragraph (3); and 

23 (D) by inserting after paragraph (1) the 

24 following new paragraph: 

25 ‘‘(2) ATTENDING OR CAUSING A MINOR TO AT26 TEND.—It shall be unlawful for any person to— 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
3 

S 1947 RFH 

1 ‘‘(A) knowingly attend an animal fighting 

2 venture; or 

3 ‘‘(B) knowingly cause a minor to attend an 

4 animal fighting venture.’’; and 

5 (2) in subsection (g), by adding at the end the 

6 following new paragraph: 

7 ‘‘(5) the term ‘minor’ means a person under the 

8 age of 18 years old.’’. 

9 SEC. 3. ENFORCEMENT OF ANIMAL FIGHTING PROHIBI10 TIONS. 

11 Section 49 of title 18, United States Code, is amend12 ed— 

13 (1) by striking ‘‘Whoever’’ and inserting ‘‘(a) 

14 IN GENERAL.—Whoever’’; 

15 (2) in subsection (a), as designated by para16 graph (1) of this section, by striking ‘‘subsection 

17 (a),’’ and inserting ‘‘subsection (a)(1),’’; and 

18 (3) by adding at the end the following new sub19 sections: 

20 ‘‘(b) ATTENDING AN ANIMAL FIGHTING VENTURE.— 

21 Whoever violates subsection (a)(2)(A) of section 26 of the 

22 Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2156) shall be fined under 

23 this title, imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both, 

24 for each violation. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
4 

S 1947 RFH 

1 ‘‘(c) CAUSING A MINOR TO ATTEND AN ANIMAL

2 FIGHTING VENTURE.—Whoever violates subsection 

3 (a)(2)(B) of section 26 (7 U.S.C. 2156) of the Animal 

4 Welfare Act shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for 

5 not more than 3 years, or both, for each violation.’’. 

Passed the Senate December 4, 2012. 

Attest: NANCY ERICKSON, 

Secretary. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with
#### Mary Jane Dillard PARDUE v. RYAN CHEVROLET, INC.

No. 98-C-2714.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 18, 1998.

IN RE: Ryan Chevrolet Inc.; — Defendants); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Number 31052-CA; Parish of Ouachita 4th Judicial District Court Div. “G” Number 94-1382.

Denied.

MARCUS, J. not on panel.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.2


                           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 DiCon Fiberoptics, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2002, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Jannett Wang, Director of Administration 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.

/s/ Jannett Wang
--------------------
Jannett Wang
Director of Administration
(chief financial officer)
February 13, 2003

This certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject
to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose.
No. 44365.

#### Protest 3189-K of A. W. Fenton Co. (New York).

*322Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

The sample consists of a piece of embossed paper or cardboard *8%*by 11 inches. The upper half is embossed with gold on a black background and in a general way depicts eastern North America, northern South America, the Atlantic Ocean, England, and Eastern France, Spain, and Africa. The lower half is red and has embossed thereon in gold the seal of the Cunard White Star Line. No commercial designation was established and it was held that the exhibit is hardly of such character as to come within the ordinary or common meaning of a.map or chart. *United States*v. *McNally*(21 C. C. P. A. 522, T. D. 46973) cited. On the record presented the protest was overruled.
No. 43221.

#### Protest 979931-G of F. W. Woolworth Co. (Baltimore).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

• The record showed that certain items consist of harmonicas similar to those involved in Abstract 40586. The claim at 40 percent under paragraph 1541 was therefore sustained.
No. 42093.

#### Protests 835443-G, etc., of Pistorino & Co., Inc., et al. (Boston).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

On the authority of *Locatelli*v. *United States*(T. D. 49302) and Abstract 40880 the protests were sustained.
No. 47716.

#### Petition 6121-R of Cargill, Inc. (Buffalo).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

From the testimony of the chief clerk in the employ of the petitioner herein and that of the appraiser, the court was of the opinion that in entering the merchandise at a value less than that found on -final appraisement the petitioner was without intent to. deceive the Government officials or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case. The petition was therefore granted.
EXHIBIT 32


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


     I, Michael Chou,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-QSB of C&D  Production  Inc. for the quarter  ended  September  30, 2004
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information  contained in such Quarterly Report on
Form 10-QSB fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial condition
and results of operations of C&D Production Inc.

     I, Chien-Te Chou, certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-QSB of C&D  Production  Inc. for the quarter  ended  September  30, 2004
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information  contained in such Quarterly Report on
Form 10-QSB fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial condition
and results of operations of C&D Production Inc.

     Pursuant  to the rules  and  regulations  of the  Securities  and  Exchange
Commission, this certification is being furnished and is not deemed filed.


By: /s/ MICHAEL CHOU
    __________________________________________
        Michael Chou
        Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive
        Officer and Secretary


By: /s/ CHIEN-TE CHOU
    __________________________________________
        Chien-Te Chou
        Chief Financial Officer and
        Administrative and Financial Manager



November 17, 2004
No. 42132.

#### Protests 606809-G, etc., of Otto Roth & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 40880 the protests were sustained.
#### James Loudon & Co. et al. *v.*United States

No. 8091.

Entry No. 4685, etc.

(Decided February 19, 1952)

*Lawrence, Tuttle & Harper (George B. Tuttle*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

*Charles J. Wagner,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

OliveR, Chief 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:

> It is hereby stipulated as follows between counsel for plaintiffs and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States, concerning the merchandise referred to herein:

> 1) That the market value or the price, at the time of exportation to the United States of the merchandise covered by these appeals to reappraisement, enumerated on attached schedule, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, plus the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed, ready for shipment to the United States, was the *558appraised value less the amount added to meet advances made by the appraiser in similar cases and that there is no higher foreign value.

> 2) That these appeals to reappraisement be submitted on this stipulation.

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 were the appraised values, less the amounts added to-meet advances made by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
(LOGO) Deloitte & Touche

Deloitte & Touche LLP
700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4500
Seattle, Washington 98104-5044

Telephone: (206) 292-1800
Facsimile: (206) 343-7809

INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT ON
COMPLIANCE WITH UNIFORM SINGLE ATTESTATION
PROGRAM FOR MORTGAGE BANKERS

Audit Committee of the Board of Directors
Washington Mutual, Inc.
Seattle, Washington

We have examined  management's  assertion about Washington  Mutual,  Inc.'s (the
Company)  compliance  with the minimum  servicing  standards  identified  in the
Mortgage Bankers Association of America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for
Mortgage Bankers (USAP) as of and for the year ended December 31, 1998, included
in the  accompanying  management  assertion.  Management is responsible  for the
Company's compliance with those minimum servicing standards.  Our responsibility
is  to  express  an  opinion  on  management's  assertion  about  the  Company's
compliance based on our examination.

Our  examination  was  made in  accordance  with  standards  established  by the
American  Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,  accordingly,  included
examining,  on a test basis,  evidence about the Company's  compliance  with the
minimum  servicing   standards  and  performing  such  other  procedures  as  we
considered  necessary  in the  circumstances.  We believe  that our  examination
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a
legal  determination  on the  Company's  compliance  with the minimum  servicing
standards.

In our opinion,  management's  assertion that Washington  Mutual,  Inc. complied
with the aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and for the year ended
December 31, 1998, is fairly stated, in all material respects.

Deloitte & Touche
February 26, 1999


Deloitte Touche
Tohmatsu