alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Oxford University Press, N. Y., Inc. *v.*United States

No. 7686.

Invoice dated Toronto, Canada, June 17, 1947.

Certified June 19, 1947.

Entered at New York, N. Y., July 9, 1947.

Entry No. 701130.

*426(Decided March 15, 1949)

*Lane, Young & Fox (William H. Fox*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*David N. Edelstein,*Assistant Attorney General *(Charles J. Miville,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Kao, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to the approval of the Court, that the issues in the appeal for reappraisement enumerated above are the same in all material respects-as the issues decided in *C. J. TOWER & SONS v. UNITED STATES,*Reap. Dec. 7624, and that the record in said case may be incorporated herein.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appraised values of the merchandise involved in the case enumerated above, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases, are equal to the price, at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise is freely offered for sale ■ to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, and that the foreign value of such or similar merchandise is no higher.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED*AND AGREED that this case may be submitted on the foregoing 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 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 entered accordingly.
July20,2015Dr.NicholasAlleyArea-I,Inc.1590N.RobertsRd.,Ste102Kennesaw,GA30144Subject:LetterofSupportforArea-lFAASection333ExemptionRequestDearDr.Alley,NASAispleasedtoexpressitssupportofArea-l'sSection333exemptionrequest.NASAandArea-lhavealongstandingrelationshipinthedevelopmentandtestingofumriannedaircraftsystems(UAS)andrelatedtechnologiestoadvancethestate-of-the-artinUASfortheimprovementofaviationsafetyandintegrationofUASintotheNationalAirspaceSystem(NAS).Asaresult,NASAhassponsorednineprogramsforArea-lwithapproximately$2,250,000awardedresultinginfourflighttestprogramsandtwoaircraftdeliveredtoNASAforfurtherflighttestingexperiments.NASAhasconfidenceintheabilityofArea-ltosafelyandeffectivelyconductUASflightsundertheprovisionallowedbytheSection333exemption.NASApersonnelhavepersonallywitnessedArea-lflighttestsandprocedureswhichincludeamethodicalseriesofsafetybriefings,checklists,andcontactwithlocalauthoritiesandairmentoensureoverallsafetyandflighttestsuccess.Finally,NASAwilldirectlybenefitfromtheSMBSection333exemption,whichArea-lwillutilizetoperformflighttestexperimentstestingnewlydevelopedtechnologytoincreasethesafetyofUASoperationsintheNASbydecreasingUASoperatorworkloadincomplexoperationalenvironments.Respectfully,BruceCoganEngineer,FlightControlsandDynamicsResearchNASAArmstrongFlightResearchCenter
# C_2012373EN.01000603.xml

| 1.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 373/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 373/6

---

Action brought on 21 September 2012 — SFC Jardibric v OHIM — Aqua Center Europa (AQUA FLOW)

(Case T-417/12)

2012/C 373/11

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: SFC Jardibric (St Jean de la Ruelle, France) (represented by: J.-L. Fourgoux, 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: Aqua Center Europa, SA (Madrid, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 July 2012 in Case R 2230/2010-4, rejecting the appeal against the decision of the Cancellation Division of 16 September 2010; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 July 2012 in Case R 2230/2010-4, rejecting the appeal against the decision of the Cancellation Division of 16 September 2010;

| — | Order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Figurative mark including the word element ‘AQUA FLOW’ for goods in Classes 6, 7, 9, 11, 17, 19 and 21 — Community trade mark No 1162064

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought:

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Proprietor of the Community trade mark:

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Aqua Center Europa, SA

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark:

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Figurative national mark including the word element ‘VAQUA FLOW’ for goods in Class 11

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity:

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Granting the application for cancellation

Decision of the Cancellation Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejecting the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 54(2) of Regulation No 207/2009; Absence of likelihood of confusion as to the goods; Absence of confusion between the signs.

Pleas in law:

---
Exhibit 32.2



Certification Of

Chief Executive Officer And

Chief Financial Officer

Of NATCO Group Inc.

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 Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2004 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the Report), I, John U. Clarke, Chief Executive Officer of NATCO Group Inc. (the Company), and, I, Richard W. FitzGerald, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, to my
knowledge, that:



The Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                        |  |                        
|----------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: December 21, 2005 |  | /s/ John U. Clarke     
|                        |  | John U. Clarke         
|                        |  | Chief Executive Officer



|                        |  |                          
|----------------------- |  | -------------------------
|Date: December 21, 2005 |  | /s/ Richard W. FitzGerald
|                        |  | Richard W. FitzGerald    
|                        |  | Chief Financial Officer
**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**

|  | (1) | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, 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/              Sun Li |
|         | Sun                LiChief                Executive Officer(Principal                Executive Officer)Date:                 August 22, 2005 |
#### United States *v.*Impost Export Service of N. J. et al.

No. 7700.

-Invoices dated Hong Kong, January 19, 1946, etc.

Certified January 22, 1946, etc.

Entered at Newark, N. J., March 20, 1946, etc.

Entry No. N-934, etc.

(Decided May 10, 1949)

*David N. Edelstein,*Assistant Attorney General *(Richard F. Weeks,*special attorney), for the plaintiff.

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn (Hadley S. King*of counsel) for the defendants.

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:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to the approval of the Court, that the market values or prices at the time of exportation of the feathers and down, the merchandise involved herein, 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 quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, were the unit values, as appraised, (including shrinkage as returned) less consular invoice fees, less insurance, less lighterage, and ocean freight, packed, and that the foreign value of such or similar merchandise is no higher.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that this case may be submitted on the foregoing 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 unit values, as appraised (including shrinkage as returned), less consular invoice fees, less insurance, less lighter-age, and ocean freight, packed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 355 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 20, 2008 

Received 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Providing for a conditional adjournment of the House of 

Representatives and a conditional recess or adjournment 

of the Senate. 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That when the House adjourns on the legisla3 tive day of Thursday, May 22, 2008, or Friday, May 23, 

4 2008, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent res5 olution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand 

6 adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, June 3, 2008, or until 

7 the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

HCON 355 RDS 

1 concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first; and that 

2 when the Senate recesses or adjourns on any day from 

3 Thursday, May 22, 2008, through Friday, May 30, 2008, 

4 on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution 

5 by its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand recessed 

6 or adjourned until noon on Monday, June 2, 2008, or such 

7 other time on that day as may be specified in the motion 

8 to recess or adjourn, or until the time of any reassembly 

9 pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, which10 ever occurs first. 

11 SEC. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority 

12 Leader of the Senate, or their respective designees, acting 

13 jointly after consultation with the Minority Leader of the 

14 House and the Minority Leader of the Senate, shall notify 

15 the Members of the House and the Senate, respectively, 

16 to reassemble at such place and time as they may des17 ignate if, in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant 

18 it. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 20, 2008. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ENCOMPASS TELESERVICES, INC., an

Oregon corporation,

 Plaintiff-counter-defendant,

 v.

RANDALL LEE SCHEETS, AKA Randy

Scheets,

 Defendant-counter-claimant -

Appellee,

SAVANT C.C.A., INC., an Arizona

corporation, AKA Savant Call Center

Associates, Inc.; et al.,

 Counter-defendants,

MICHAEL A. BOYLE, pro se,

 Counter-defendant -

Appellant.

No. 09-35612

D.C. No. 3:04-cv-00821-HU

MEMORANDUM*

ENCOMPASS TELESERVICES, INC., an

Oregon corporation,

No. 09-35719

D.C. No. 3:04-cv-00821-HU

FILED

JUL 16 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 Plaintiff-counter-defendant,

 v.

RANDALL LEE SCHEETS, AKA Randy

Scheets,

 Defendant-counter-claimant -

Appellee,

SAVANT C.C.A., INC., an Arizona

corporation, AKA Savant Call Center

Associates, Inc. and PATRICK BOYLE,

 Counter-defendants,

MICHAEL A. BOYLE, pro se,

 Counter-defendant -

Appellant,

JOHN CARGAL,

 Counter-defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Dennis James Hubel, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted July 12, 2010

Portland, Oregon

Before: PREGERSON, WARDLAW and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

Michael A. Boyle (Boyle) appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion

for a new trial.
3

“To establish that the district court abused its discretion in denying [his]

motion for a new trial based upon the newly discovered evidence, the appellant[]

must show that [he] discovered the evidence after trial, that [he] could not have

discovered the evidence sooner through the exercise of reasonable diligence, and

that the new evidence is of such magnitude that it would likely have changed the

outcome of the case.” Far Out Productions, Inc. v. Oskar, 247 F.3d 986, 998 (9th

Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). 

Boyle’s newly discovered evidence consisted of Encompass Teleservices,

Inc.’s financial records that, according to Boyle, revealed an erroneous accounting

of a $500,000 loan Boyle made to Encompass. However, as the secretary for

Encompass, Boyle maintained the financial records and had access to the

documents he now asserts are newly discovered. Because Boyle previously had

access to these documents, they cannot be fairly characterized as newly discovered,

and the trial court acted within its discretion when it denied Boyle’s motion. 

“Evidence is not newly discovered if it was in the party’s possession at the time of

[the] judgment or could have been discovered with reasonable diligence.” Wallis

v. J.R. Simplot Co., 26 F.3d 885, 892 n.6 (9th Cir. 1994), as amended, (citation

omitted).
4

Boyle’s assertion that the trial judge erred in permitting Randall Scheets to

amend his pretrial order lacks merit. The trial judge never entered a final pretrial

order. Boyle cannot be prejudiced by an order that was never entered.

AFFIRMED.
#### Edel HURTADO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 98-930.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 21, 1998.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Howard K. Blumberg, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General and Richard L. Polin, Assistant Attorney General and Michael D. Sehmidtke, Certified Legal Intern, for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and GERSTEN and GREEN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed and remanded for entry of an appropriate written order revoking probation.
NUTRA PHARMA CORP.


          CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                  PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
             OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

                                               Exhibit 31.1

  I, Rik Deitsch, President and Chief Executive Officer of Nutra Pharma
  Corp. (the "Company") certify that:

  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of the Company;

  2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any
  untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
  necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
  under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to
  the period covered by this quarterly report;

  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
  information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all
  material respects the financial condition, results of operations and
  cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this
  quarterly report;

  4. The Company's other certifying officer and I, are responsible for
  establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
  defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the Company and
  have:

  a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
  disclosure controls and procedures to be designed, under our supervision
  to ensure that material information relating to the Company, including
  any subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
  particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being
  prepared;

  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Company's disclosure controls and
  procedures, and presented in this report, our conclusions about the
  effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
  of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

  c) disclosed in this report any change in the Company's internal control
  over financial reporting that occurred during the Company's most recent
  fiscal quarter (the Company's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
  annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
  materially affect, the Company's internal control over financial
  reporting;

  5. The Company's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
  our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,
  to the Company's auditors and the audit committee of the Company's board
  of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function);

  a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
  operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are
  reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company's ability to record,
  process, summarize and report financial information and any fraud,
  whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
  have a significant role in the Company's internal controls over
  financial reporting.



  /s/ Rik Deitsch
  ------------------------
  By:  Rik Deitsch
  Its: President and Chief Executive Officer

  Date: November 19, 2003
No. 42123.

#### Protests 754947-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.
EXHIBIT 21


                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                                      State of
                                                                                                  Incorporation or
                                                                               Percent of          Organization of
        Parent                                   Subsidiary                    Ownership         Parent/Subsidiary
        ------                                   ----------                    ---------         -----------------

<S>                                        <C>                                   <C>                <C>
Hudson River Bancorp, Inc.                 Hudson River Bank & Trust             100%               Delaware
                                           Company

Hudson River Bancorp, Inc.                 C. W. Bostwick, Inc.                  61.3%              Delaware

Hudson River Bank & Trust Company          Hudson City Associates, Inc.          100%               New York

Hudson River Bank & Trust Company          Hudson River Mortgage                 100%               New York
                                           Corporation

Hudson River Bank & Trust Company          Hudson River Funding Corp.            99.9%              New York

Hudson River Bank & Trust Company          Hudson City Centre, Inc.              100%               New York

Hudson River Bank & Trust Company          SSLA Services Corp.                   100%               New York
</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 99.1


                                  CERTIFICATION
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
        (SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18,
                               UNITED STATES CODE)

            Pursuant  to  section  906  of  the   Sarbanes-Oxley   Act  of  2002
(subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,  chapter 63 of Title 18, United States
Code),  the  undersigned  officer of Interplay  Entertainment  Corp., a Delaware
corporation  (the  "Company"),  does hereby  certify  with respect to the Annual
Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended  December  31, 2002
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "10-K Report") that:

         (1)      the  10-K  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 10-K Report fairly presents,
                  in all material respects,  the financial condition and results
                  of operations of the Company.

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Interplay Entertainment Corp. and will be retained by Interplay
Entertainment  Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange  Commission or
its staff upon request.


Date:    March 31, 2003

                                                 /s/ Herve Caen
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Herve Caen
                                                 Chief Executive Officer and
                                                 Interim Chief Financial Officer


                                       50