alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Robert
      D. Thomas, Jr., CPG 10314




5040
      Pleasant View Drive,


Sparks,
      Nevada, USA


89434





Email   rdtxplore@earthlink.net




To:          United
      States Securities and Exchange Commission


The
      Toronto Stock Exchange


British
      Columbia Securities Commission


Alberta
      Securities Commission


Ontario
      Securities Commission


Autorité
      des marchés financiers


Rubicon
      Minerals Corporation




Re:  Rubicon
      Minerals Corporation (the “Company”)




I,
      Robert
      D. Thomas, Jr. CPG., do hereby consent to the filing of the written disclosure
      regarding the technical report entitled “Exploration Activities of Rubicon
      Minerals Corporation on the Phoenix Gold Project, Red Lake Ontario for the
      period January 2006 to October 2008” and dated January 9, 2009 (the “Technical
      Report”) in the Form 40-F Annual Report and the Annual Information Form both
      dated March 31, 2009.




I
      certify
      that I have read the written disclosure being filed and that it fairly and
      accurately represents the information in the Technical Report or that supports
      the disclosure.




I
      also
      consent to the use of my name in the Company’s Form 40-F Annual Report and the
      Annual Information Form both dated March 31, 2009.










Dated
      this31stday
      of March, 2009.











Signed:“Rob
      Thomas”





Rob
      Thomas, Robert D. Thomas, Jr., CPG 10314
#### Butler Brothers et al. *v.*United States

No. 7863.

Entry No. 3265, etc.

*384(Decided August 14, 1950)

*Wallace & Schwartz {Joseph Schwartz*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

*David N. 'Edelstein,*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:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to the approval of the Court, that the issues in the appeals for reappraisement listed in the attached schedule are the same in all material respects as the issues decided in United States v. Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp., Suit No. 4513, O. A. D. 334, 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 each of the cases enumerated in the attached schedule, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases, is 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 these cases 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 rendered accordingly.
EXHIBIT 32.2



NOBEL LEARNING COMMUNITIES, INC.



CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO

SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE



In connection with the Annual Report of Nobel Learning Communities, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended July 2, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas Frank, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that based
on my knowledge:



(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/    THOMAS FRANK                       
|Name: Thomas Frank Chief Financial Officer
|                                          
|Date: September 19, 2005
# C_2014202EN.01000701.xml

| 30.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg –Germany) — Technische Universität Hamburg-Harburg, Hochschul-Informations-System GmbH v Datenlotsen Informationssysteme GmbH

(Case C-15/13) (1)

1

((Public supply contracts - Directive 2004/18/EC - Award of a contract without initiating a tendering procedure - In-house award - Contractor legally separate from the contracting authority - Condition of ‘similar control’ - Contracting authority and contractor not linked by a relationship of control - Third party public authority exercising partial control over the contracting authority and control over the contractor which could be qualified as ‘similar’ - ‘Horizontal in-house transaction’))

2014/C 202/08

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Technische Universität Hamburg-Harburg, Hochschul-Informations-System GmbH

Applicants:

Defendant: Datenlotsen Informationssysteme GmbH

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg — Interpretation of the term ‘public contract’ in Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114) — Possible inclusion of a contract between a company and a university subject to the control of the same public body, which is the public contracting authority within the meaning of the directive (horizontal in-house transaction) — Extent of the control of that public authority

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts must be interpreted as meaning that a contract for the supply of products concluded between (i) a university which is a contracting authority and whose purchases of products and services are controlled by a German Federal State, and (ii) an undertaking under private law, owned by the Federation and by Federal States, including the abovementioned Federal State, constitutes a public contract for the purposes of that provision, and must therefore be subject to the public procurement rules laid down in that directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 114, 20.4.2013.

1

---
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm

As independent registered public
accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statements Nos. 333-09917, 333-10117, 333-47098 and 333-131044 on
Form S-3 and Nos. 333-09911, 333-09909, 333-46086, 333-76812, 333-103101,
333-131051 and 333-145454 on Form S-8 of our report dated November 24, 2009,
relating to the consolidated financial statements of Amtech Systems, Inc. as of
September 30, 2009 and September 30, 2008 and the related consolidated
statements of operations, stockholders equity and comprehensive income (loss),
and cash flows for each of the years in the three year period ended September
30, 2009, included in the 2009 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Amtech Systems,
Inc.

/s/ Mayer Hoffman McCann
      P.C.


Phoenix, ArizonaNovember 24,
2009

76

---
No. 48908.

#### Protest 78944-K of New York Merchandise Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The uncontradicted proof established that the wreaths are similar to those involved in *United States*v. *Minami*(29 C. C. P. A. 169, C. A. D. 188), which record was incorporated herein. Following the cited case the claim at 35 percent under paragraph 353 was sustained.
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .

                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1

                   ORION POWER HOLDINGS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                       RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                           THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31,
                                                           ----------------------------
                                                             2003 (1)        2004 (1)
                                                           ------------    ------------
                                                           (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT RATIO
                                                                     AMOUNTS)
<S>                                                        <C>             <C>
Fixed charges:
  Interest expense .....................................   $     36,440    $     36,117
  Capitalized interest .................................              -               -
  Interest within rent expense .........................            156             158
                                                           ------------    ------------
    Total fixed charges ................................   $     36,596    $     36,275
                                                           ============    ============

Earnings:
  Loss before income taxes and cumulative effect of
    accounting changes .................................   $     (7,327)   $    (10,451)
                                                           ------------    ------------
  Plus -
    Fixed charges from above ...........................         36,596          36,275
    Amortization of capitalized interest ...............            285             285
  Less -
    Capitalized interest ...............................              -               -
                                                           ------------    ------------
                                                           $     29,554    $     26,109
                                                           ============    ============

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges .....................              -               -
                                                           ============    ============
</TABLE>

----------------
(1)   For the three months ended March 31, 2003 and 2004, Orion Power's earnings
      were insufficient to cover its fixed charges by $7 million and $10
      million, respectively.
Home | About GAO | Contact GAO | Site Map | E-mail Updates | Help

Advanced SearchSearch Only Legal Decisions

# 

        - Reports & Testimonies
        - Legal Decisions
        - Comptroller General
        - Topic Collections
        - Careers
        - FraudNet/Reporting Fraud
        - Multimedia

# Emergency Preparedness: Results of Survey on State and Local Emergency Alert and Notification Capabilities (GAO-09-880SP, September 2009), an E-supplement to GAO-09-834
No. 5972.

#### FALVY WILSON COMPANY, LIMITED, vs. EDMUND HUGHES.

Syllabus.

The terms of a written instrument, clear and unambiguous upon its face and signed by the party sought to be charged, cannot be varied, explained or contradicted by parole evidence.

Appeal from tire Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans, Division “D,” No. 102,693. Hon. Porter Parker, Judge.

Edward Rightor, for plaintiff and-appellee.

J. K. Bailey, for defendant and appellant.

His- Honor, EMILE GODOHAUX,

rendered the opinion and decree of the Court, as follows:

Defendant .appeals from a judgment condemning him for the purchase price of certain mantels alleged to have been sold and delivered to him by plaintiff.

Plaintiff’s objection was sustained to. the admission of parole proof tendered by -defendant for the purpose of showing that the goods were sold not to him, but to a third person, the evidence being objected to .on the ground that the transaction is embodied in .a writing, admittedly signed and accepted by defendant, and evidencing a sale to the latter.

The correctness of this ruling is the only matter presented on this appeal.

The document upon which plaintiff relies consists of its ordinary .order or sales sheet upon which is entered in defendant’s name, the character and quantity of the goods ordered a.s well as the price and terms upon which they were sold; and defendant’s acceptance is exhibited *106thereon over Ms own signature. As the document is clear and unambiguous, requiring no evidence to explain or support it, the lower Court properly rejected the parolé testimony offered for the purpose of showing that the sale was made to a party other than defendant, for its effect would be to vary and contradict the terms of the written instrument.

Opinion and decree, January 26, 1914.

Lyons vs. Jackson, 4 Rob., 465; Center vs. Terry, 8 Martin, 206.

It is accordingly ordered that the judgment be affirmed.

Judgment (affirmed.
# C_2015081EN.01001801.xml

| 9.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 81/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 81/18

---

Order of the General Court of 14 January 2015 — Bolívar Cerezo v OHIM — Renovalia Energy (RENOVALIA)

(Case T-166/12) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark RENOVALIA - Earlier national word marks RENOVA ENERGY and RENOVAENERGY - Partial refusal to register - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law))

(2015/C 081/23)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Juan Bolívar Cerezo (Granada, Spain) (represented by: I. Barroso Sánchez-Lafuente, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Mondéjar Ortuño, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Renovalia Energy, SA (Villarobledo, Spain) (represented by: A. Velázquez Ibáñez, lawyer)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 January 2012 (Case R 663/2011-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Renovalia Energy, SA and Mr Juan Bolívar Cerezo.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed;

| 2. | Mr Juan Bolívar Cerezo is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Juan Bolívar Cerezo is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 194, 30.6.2012.

1

---
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2137 

To prohibit the issuance of a waiver for commissioning or enlistment in 

the Armed Forces for any individual convicted of a felony sexual offense. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 28, 2012 

Mrs. BOXER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To prohibit the issuance of a waiver for commissioning or 

enlistment in the Armed Forces for any individual convicted of a felony sexual offense. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON WAIVER FOR COMMIS4 SIONING OR ENLISTMENT IN THE ARMED 

5 FORCES FOR ANY INDIVIDUAL CONVICTED 

6 OF A FELONY SEXUAL OFFENSE. 

7 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress makes the following find8 ings: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•S 2137 IS

1 (1) In fiscal year 2011 alone, 3,191 incidents of 

2 sexual assault—including rape—were reported in the 

3 military. 

4 (2) In fiscal year 2010, an additional 3,158 

5 such incidents were reported. 

6 (3) According to Secretary of Defense Leon Pa7 netta, these figures may significantly underestimate 

8 the actual number of sexual assaults. 

9 (4) According to Secretary Panetta, the actual 

10 number of sexual assaults may be closer to 19,000 

11 annually. 

12 (5) According to the Army, the number of vio13 lent sexual assaults committed by members of the 

14 Army rose by 90 percent between 2006 and 2011. 

15 (6) According to Secretary Panetta, the men 

16 and women of the Armed Forces ‘‘are willing to 

17 fight and die to protect and serve our country—they 

18 deserve better protection. Their families and depend19 ents also sacrifice and serve. And so for this reason, 

20 we must spare no effort to protect them against this 

21 heinous crime. . . . One sexual assault is one too 

22 many.’’. 

23 (7) Every effort must be made to bring the epi24 demic of sexual assaults within the Armed Forces to 

25 an end. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

3 

•S 2137 IS

1 (b) PROHIBITION.—An individual may not be pro2 vided a waiver for commissioning or enlistment in the 

3 Armed Forces if the individual has been convicted under 

4 Federal or State law of a felony offense of any of the fol5 lowing: 

6 (1) Rape. 

7 (2) Sexual abuse. 

8 (3) Sexual assault. 

9 (4) Incest. 

10 (5) Any other sexual offense. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6479

CLAIR LOVERIDGE, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, District Judge. (1:03-cr-00063-IMK-1; 1:06-cv-00006-IMK-JSK)

Submitted: May 28, 2009 Decided: June 8, 2009

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clair Loveridge, Appellant Pro Se. Betsy C. Jividen, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Clair Loveridge seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2008) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (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). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);

Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Loveridge has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
No. 47726.

#### Protests 874790-G, etc., of A. D. Cohen Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 47291, racello hats or hoods, not bleached, dyed, colored or stained, and not blocked or trimmed, were held dutiable at only 25 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1504 (b) (1) as claimed.
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. David SEABAUGH, Defendant/Appellant.

No. 73957.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.

Sept. 29, 1998.

Lance G. Eberhart, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Barbara K. Chesser, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before SIMON, P.J., and CRANE and MOONEY, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM. '

Defendant, David Seabaugh, is appealing from the judgment entered after the trial court convicted him of chiving while intoxicated, class D felony, in violation of section 577.010 RSMo 1994 (all references hereinafter shall be to RSMo 1994 unless otherwise indicated); operating a motor vehicle while license revoked, class A misdemeanor, in violation of section 302.321; and possession of a controlled substance, class A misdemeanor, in violation of section 195.202. In his points on appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred in: (1) sustaining state’s motion in limine and prohibiting a defense witness from testifying about defendant’s blood alcohol level and statements defendant made concerning the offense; (2) permitting the prosecutor to define reasonable doubt; and (3) permitting statements and testimony by two Deputy Sheriffs regarding their prior observation of defendant when he was intoxicated and not intoxicated.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. An extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).
No. 39181.

#### Protest 893309-G of Walker, Goulard, Plehn Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was held that duty should have been assessed on the actual net landed weight and the protest was accordingly sustained.
No. 47111.

#### Protest 80575-K of J. D. & A. B. Spreckles Co. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

___________________________________________ 

AHMAD MOHAMMAD AL DARBI, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

BARACK OBAMA, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No.: 05-2371 (RCL) 

___________________________________________) 

 SCHEDULING ORDER 

 THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the parties’ Joint Status Report. Based upon 

the representations of the parties, it is hereby 

1. ORDERED that Petitioner shall file his Traverse on or before December 10, 

2010; 

2. ORDERED that Respondents shall file their motion to amend the Factual 

Return by January 14, 2011; and 

3. ORDERED that the parties shall file a Joint Status Report on or before 

January 28, 2011, in which they will either: 

a. notify the Court that Petitioner intends to move for additional 

discovery and/or to amend his Traverse and propose a briefing 

schedule on that matter; or 

b. propose a briefing schedule for the parties’ cross-motions for judgment 

on the record. 

SO ORDERED. 

_8/17/2010_____ /s/ 

Date ROYCE C. LAMBERTH 

CHIEF JUDGE
Case Wo. 5,576.’

#### GOODYEAR v. MALLEC.

[See Case No. 5,579.]