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

Exhibit 21.1

Microfilm Number______________________  Filed with the Department of
                                        State on_____________________________

Entity Number   2908531
              ------------------------  -------------------------------------
                                        Secretary of the Commonwealth

                      ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION -FOR PROFIT

                                       OF

                      NB PAYPHONES LTD.

   X  Business Stock (15Pa.C.S.1306)       ______Professional (15 Pa. C.S. 2903)
------
______Business Nonstock(15Pa.C.S.2102)     ______Management (15Pa.C.S.2702)
______Business-Statutory Close             ______Insurance(15Pa.C.S.3101)
      (Pa.C.S.2303)
______Cooperative (15Pa.C.S.7102)

     In compliance with the requirements of the applicable
provisions of 15 Pa. C.S. (relating to corporations and
unincorporated associations) the undersigned ,desiring to
incorporate a corporation for profit hereby, state(s)that :

     1.  The name of the corporation is:
                            NB PAYPHONES LTD.

     2.  The address of this corporation's initial registered office
         in this Commonwealth or name of its commercial registered
         office provider and the county of venue is:

         Corporation Service Company
         Dauphin County

     3.  The corporation is incorporated under the provisions of the
         Business Corporation Law of 1988.

     4.  The aggregate number of shares authorized is:
         200 shares at no par value.


                                       27
<PAGE>

     PAGE 2
     ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
     NB PAYPHONES LTD.





     5.  The name and address, including number and street, if any,
         of each incorporator is:

         Brigit Williamson
         319 Market Street
         Harrisburg, PA 17101

     6.  The specified effective date, if any, is:

     7.  Additional provisions of the articles, if any attach an
         81/2 x 11 sheet.

     8.  Statutory close corporation only: Neither the corporation
         nor any shareholder shall make an offering of any of its
         shares of any class that would constitute a "public
         offering" within the meaning of the Securities Act of
         1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.)

     9.  Cooperative corporations only: (Complete and strike out
         inapplicable term) The common bond of membership among
         its members/shareholders is:

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the incorporator has signed these Articles of
Incorporation on November 16,1999.


      /s/ Brigit Williamson
      ---------------------
          Brigit Williamson


                                       28
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 67 (Friday, April 6, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20781-20782]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8237]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the North Carolina 
Advisory Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that the North Carolina Advisory 
Committee (Committee) to the Commission will meet on Wednesday, April 
25, 2012, at the Conference Center, Sheraton Hotel, 3121 Highpoint Rd., 
Greensboro, NC 27407, for the purpose of receiving a briefing on equal 
educational opportunity and to discuss the Committee's draft report on 
school discipline. The briefing meeting is scheduled to begin at 1 p.m. 
and adjourn at approximately 2 p.m. The planning meeting is scheduled 
to begin at approximately 2 p.m. and adjourn at approximately 3 p.m.
    Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments. The 
comments must be received in the Southern Regional Office of the 
Commission by May 25, 2012. The address is Southern Regional Office, 
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 61 Forsyth Street, Suite 16T126, 
Atlanta, GA 30303. Persons wishing to email their comments, or to 
present their comments verbally at the meeting, or who desire 
additional information should contact Elida Rodriguez, Administrative 
Assistant, Southern Regional Office, at (404) 562-7000, (or for hearing 
impaired TDD 800-877-8339), or by email to erodriguez@usccr.gov. 
Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require the 
services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional 
Office at least ten (10) working

[[Page 20782]]

days before the scheduled date of the meeting.
    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced 
at the Southern Regional Office, as they become available, both before 
and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this advisory 
committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site, 
www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Southern Regional Office at the above 
email or street address. The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the 
provisions of the rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA.

    Dated in Washington, DC, April 2, 2012.
Peter Minarik,
Acting Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. 2012-8237 Filed 4-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
```
# C_2014135EN.01003801.xml

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/38

---

Order of the General Court of 10 March 2014 — Spirlea v Commission

(Case T-518/12) (1)

1

((Action for annulment - Public health - Decision to bring an end to an EU pilot procedure - Closure of the file on a complaint - Failure to bring an action for failure to fulfil obligations - Inadmissibility))

2014/C 135/48

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Darius Nicolai Spirlea (Capezzano Pianore, Italy); and Mihaela Spirlea (Capezzano Pianore) (represented by: V. Foerster and T. Pahl, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Sipos and G. Wilms, Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented initially by S. Centeno Huerta, and subsequently by J. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the defendant

Re:

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission decision to bring an end to EU pilot procedure No 2070/11/SNCO, as referred to in the letter of 27 September 2012, sent to the applicants under reference SANCO/A2/AM/kva (2012) 1245353.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Darius Nicolai Spirlea and Mihaela Spirlea are ordered to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Darius Nicolai Spirlea and Mihaela Spirlea are ordered to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

| 3. | The Kingdom of Spain is ordered to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Kingdom of Spain is ordered to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 32, 2.2.2013.

1

---
Before the First Division,

February 13, 1940

No. 43219.

#### Protest 989213-G of M. Pressner & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of novelties in chief value of fur similar to those the subject of Abstract 41823. The claim at 50 percent under paragraph 1519 (e) was therefore sustained.
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, 2005, 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 16, 2005

/s/ Sukhbir Singh Mudan
Sukhbir Singh Mudan, President and Treasurer
(Principal executive officer
and principal financial officer)
Telephone: 614-883-5700

 Cell Phone: 614-595-5300

 Fax: 614-883-5701

March 25, 2013

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Operations, M-30

West Building - Ground Floor

Room W12-140

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, D. C. 20590

Subject: REQUEST FOR RENEWAL OF FAA EXEMPTION 9917-A

 REGULATORY DOCUMENT NO. FAA-2009-0373, ALLOWING

 SINGLE PILOT OPERATION OF A CESSNA CITATION.

Sirs:

Through this letter we request the FAA renew Exemption 9917-A. This would allow 

Cessna Citations to fly Single Pilot with some limitations. The terms and conditions of 

the original petition remain the same, except we are requesting the addition of the 

authorized check ride examiner to include PPE (Pilot Proficiency Examiner). Any issues 

regarding public safety and public interest remain the same.

Thank you for your support in this matter. If there are any questions please do not 

hesitate to call.

Regards,

Michael F. Riley

Director, VUE Inc.

"Global Flight Training"

6956 E. Broad Street Suite 239

Columbus, Ohio 43213
#### Inter-Maritime Forwarding Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States

No. 6586.

Entry No. 713265, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, July 31, 1941, etc.-

Certified August 1, 1941, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., September 10, 1941, etc.

(Decided December 6, 1946)

*Tompkins & Tompkins (J. Stuart Tompkins*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

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

Mollison, 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.)

*466On 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 importers on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
July 29, 2011

Mr. Olaf Tessarzyk Chief Flight Instructor

Indiana Air Search and Rescue

20 N. Meridian Street, Suite 206 Indianapolis, IN 46204

Dear Mr. Tessarzyk:

This is in response to your January 1, 2011 letter (FAA Docket No. FAA-2011-0086) petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration (F AA) on behalf of Indiana Air Search and Rescue (IASAR) for an exemption from §§ 91.146, 91.147, 119.5(g), 119.23(a), and applicable sections of part 125. The proposed exemption, if granted, would allow IASAR to operate its UH-1H helicopter for the purpose of carrying passengers on living history flights in return for compensation.

On March 23, 2011, the FAA issued a moratorium on the issuance of Living History Flight Experience (LHFE) exemptions. A copy of the Federal Register notice is enclosed for your

information.

This moratorium provides the FAA a needed opportunity to reevaluate the LHFE policy and the conditions of issuance of these exemptions. During this moratorium, industry will be given an opportunity to provide input to shape the agency’s revised LHFE policy. The FAA plans to seek industry input on the evolution of LHFE operations in the private sector, which have raised public safety and policy concerns. The FAA plans to hold a public meeting, which will be announced in the Federal Register, to give industry a venue to provide input that will be considered as the agency reevaluates and revises the LHFE policy.

Current LHFE exemption holders can continue to operate under their current exemption. If the exemption is due to expire during the moratorium, the FAA will accept and process petitions to extend current exemptions in accordance with the established regulatory exemption process. If a change is required (i.e., removal of an aircraft) the FAA will accept these changes in accordance with the regulatory process. Additionally, during the moratorium, as petitioners request extensions to their LHFE exemption, the FAA will add the following clarifying limitations to all LHFE exemptions to ensure consistent application of current LHFE policy:2

1. Passengers are prohibited from manipulating the aircraft flight controls when the aircraft is operated under the LHFE exemption; and

2. No aerobatics may be performed in the aircraft while operating under the LHFE exemption.

Finally, the FAA will begin its evaluation of the current LHFE exemption policies and practices, to include evaluation of safety to the paying members of the public who have an expectation of aircraft safety and who may not understand the inherent risks associated with such flight. The FAA expects to publish a new proposed LHFE policy for comment on or before September 30, 2012.

No new LHFE exemptions will be issued during this moratorium nor will any aircraft be added to existing exemptions. Accordingly, no further action will be taken on your petition.

Sincerely,

/s/

John W. McGraw Acting Director, Flight Standards

Service

Enclosure
Exhibit32.1

Certification of CEO Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q of Alamosa Holdings, Inc. (the"Company") for the three months ended March31, 2004, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the "Report"), I, David E.Sharbutt, as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of myknowledge:

|           |                                                                                                                     |
|-----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (1)  | The Report fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934; and |

|           |                                                                                                                                                   |
|-----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (2)  | The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of theCompany. |

/s/ David E. Sharbutt

|  |
|--|
|  |  |
|  |

|             |                  |
|-------------|------------------|
| Name:  | DavidE. Sharbutt |

|              |                                     |
|--------------|-------------------------------------|
| Title:  | Chairman andChief Executive Officer |

|             |             |
|-------------|-------------|
| Date:  | May 5, 2004 |

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to theextent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed bythe Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, as amended.

----
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 17 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 17

 To repeal the job-killing tax on medical devices to ensure continued 
  access to life-saving medical devices for patients and maintain the 
    standing of United States as the world leader in medical device 
                              innovation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             January 25 (legislative day, January 5), 2011

     Mr. Hatch (for himself, Mr. Burr, Mr. Coburn, and Mr. Cornyn) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                          Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To repeal the job-killing tax on medical devices to ensure continued 
  access to life-saving medical devices for patients and maintain the 
    standing of United States as the world leader in medical device 
                              innovation.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Medical Device Access and Innovation 
Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF MEDICAL DEVICE EXCISE TAX.

    Subsections (a), (b), and (c) of section 1405 of the Health Care 
and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, and the amendments made 
thereby, are hereby repealed; and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
shall be applied as if such section and amendments had never been 
enacted.
                                 <all>
```
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 22-20119

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Eleazar Gonzalez-Cortes, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:20-CR-632-1

Before Smith, Dennis, and Southwick, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Eleazar 

Gonzalez-Cortes has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in 

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States 

v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Gonzalez-Cortes has not filed a 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 3, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-20119 Document: 00516493376 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/03/2022
No. 22-20119

2

response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the 

record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the 

appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, 

counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused 

from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Case: 22-20119 Document: 00516493376 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/03/2022
Exhibit
      32.2





**STATEMENT
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**


**OF
      THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





I,
      Eric
      Young, Chief Financial Officer of Winsonic Digital Media Group, Ltd. (the
      "Company"), hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(a)
      The
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended September
      30, 2005, to which this certification accompanies (the "Annual Report"), fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934; and





(b)
      The
      information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




May
              18,
              2006
            
            /S/
              Eric YoungEric
                Young, Chief Financial
                Officer
























A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to Winsonic Digital Media Group, Ltd. and
      will
      be retained by Winsonic Digital Media Group, Ltd. and furnished to the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2012355EN.01003602.xml

| 17.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 355/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 355/36

---

Action brought on 26 September 2012 — Sport Eybl & Sports Experts v OHIM — Elite Licensing (e)

(Case T-425/12)

2012/C 355/76

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Sport Eybl & Sports Experts GmbH (Wels, Austria) (represented by: B. Gumpoldsberger, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Elite Licensing Company SA (Fribourg, Switzerland)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the part of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 26 June 2012 in Case R 881/2011-1 with which the opponent’s appeal was upheld and the registration of the Community trade mark applied for by the applicant in respect of Classes 9, 12, 18, 22, 25 and 28 was refused; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the part of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 26 June 2012 in Case R 881/2011-1 with which the opponent’s appeal was upheld and the registration of the Community trade mark applied for by the applicant in respect of Classes 9, 12, 18, 22, 25 and 28 was refused; and

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark including the letter ‘e’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 12, 18, 22, 25, 28 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 6 220 421

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Elite Licensing Company SA

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the national, international and Community figurative mark including the letter ‘e’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 28, 32, 35, 38, 41, 43 and 44

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was rejected

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was upheld in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

Pleas in law:

---