alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014261EN.01001902.xml

| 11.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/19

---

Order of the President of the Court of 7 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Andreas Grund acting as administrator in the insolvency proceedings concerning the assets of SR-Tronic GmbH, Jürgen Reiser, Dirk Seidler v Nintendo Co. Ltd, Nintendo of America Inc.

(Case C-458/13) (1)

1

2014/C 261/33

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.

1

---
# C_2014045EN.01004405.xml

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/44

---

Order of the General Court of 28 November 2013 — Refrigue-confecções para o frio v OHIM — Sixty International (Refrigue for cold)

(Case T-511/12) (1)

1

2014/C 45/79

Language of the case: Italian

The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 38, 9.2.2013.

1

---
**“Take 10” Turnkey Kit**

**Newsletter and Web site Copy**

*Customize this copy with specific details about your state, city or community, and, if applicable, include information about the challenge you are posing to increase participation.*

**“Take 10” and Help <<YOUR CITY>> Get What it Needs for the Next 10 Years**

In March 2010, more than 130 million addresses will receive a 2010 Census form by mail or hand delivery. The 2010 Census will document the changes in our nation since the last decennial census in 2000, and tell us how we’ve evolved as a country. Because census data affect how more than $400 billion in federal funding is distributed to tribal, state and local governments, the census also will frame the future of our country and our community for the next 10 years. 

During Census 2000, the mail participation rate was 72 percent as of the April 2000 cut-off. About $85 million is saved for every one percent increase in mail participation. For these and many other reasons, we must work to encourage everyone’s participation in the census. 

Here’s what you should know about the 2010 Census:

**It’s easy.** One of the shortest census forms in history, the 2010 Census form asks 10 questions and takes about 10 minutes to complete. The individual in whose name the housing unit is rented or owned should complete the form on behalf of every person living there, both relatives and nonrelatives. 

**It’s important.** Census data are used to reapportion seats in Congress and ensure proper district representation in state and local governments. Information from the census helps determine locations for child-care and senior centers, new roads, hospitals, schools and community centers. 

**It’s safe.** By law, the U.S. Census Bureau cannot share respondents’ answers with anyone, including other federal agencies and law enforcement entities. All Census Bureau employees take an oath of nondisclosure and are sworn for life to protect the confidentiality of the data. The penalty for unlawful disclosure is a fine of up to $250,000 or imprisonment of up to five years, or both.

Finally, the most efficient way to respond to the 2010 Census is to complete the form as soon as it arrives and return it in the postage-paid return envelope. Census workers will visit households that do not return forms to take the count in person.

<<If applicable, include details about your 2010 challenge here.>>

<<I/we>> are issuing a challenge to this <<city/community>> to increase the mail participation rate and help ensure a complete and accurate count in 2010. 

For more information about <<your city challenge>> visit <<Complete Count Committee (CCC) contact/organization site>>.  For more information about the 2010 Census and the “Take 10” initiative, visit 2010census.gov.
----

Exhibit 32.3

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350
(SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002) 

I, Guangyu Wu, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, asadopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based upona review of the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ended December 31,2006 of the Registrant (the "Report"): 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 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 ofthe Registrant. 

A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by theRegistrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staffupon request. 
**SIGNATUREDate: June 12, 2008 /s/ Guangyu WuGuangyu Wu Chief Executive Officer
 ****
No. 96-1308.

#### Lovell *v.*Hurford et al.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Daniel Goodwin *versus*Joel W. Cloudman and als.

Upon hearing of a motion to set aside a verdict, because a juror who tried the cause was related to the prevailing party, the proof should ex-~ clude the reasonable possibility of knowledge of this fact on the part of all parties making the motion, and of their counsel.

One claiming- by record title will prevail against a prior deed unrecorded, unless the grantee has actual knowledge of the prior conveyance.

Exceptions from *Nisi Prius,*Appleton, J., presiding.

In this case, after verdict for the plaintiff, Cloudman, one of the defendants, filed a motion for a new trial, because one of the jurors who tried the cause was a nephew of the plaintiff, and therefore disqualified by law to sit in the case. The defendants offered no evidence in support of the motion, except the motion itself and the affidavit of Cloudman, one of the defendants. Upon this evidence the court overruled the motion.

The defendants plead jointly.

*D. D.*Stuart, counsel for the plaintiff.

*G. W.*Ingersoll, counsel for the defendants.

Appleton, J.

The plaintiff’s title is by a mortgage, unrecorded at the time E. S. Coe, as whose servants the defendants justify, acquired his title. The jury were instructed to find for the defendants, unless they were satisfied that Coe *578had actual notice of this mortgage, which fact, by their verdict, they have found. This instruction affords no just ground for complaint.

After verdict, a motion was filed to set aside the verdict, because one of the jury was disqualified by reason of his relationship to the plaintiff. It .may well be a matter of doubt if a party who neglects the right to challenge, which the law affords, can be permitted to take advantage of it after verdict. McLellan v. Crofton, 6 Greenl., 307. But, however that may be, the proof should exclude the reasonable possibility of knowledge of that fact on the part of all parties, making the motion, and of their counsel. This the defendants entirely fail to do. The proof of ignorance of this relationship is from only one of the defendants and from one of their counsel. For aught that appears, all the facts which are now claimed as sufficient to set aside the verdict, may have been known to the other defendants, or to the associate counsel employed in the defence. The exceptions must be overruled.

*Exceptions*overruled, *and judgment on the verdict.*
(Reap. Dec. 9699)

#### Leyden Customs Expediters, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 1005419.

(Decided May 10, 1960)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation for the respective parties:

> It is stipulated and agreed by and between the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the value of the merchandise at the time of exportation to the United States, covered by the appeal to reappraisement enumerated above, at which time 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 * * * was the export value of DM 215.00 per 100 kilos P.O.B. Hamburg as defined in Section 402 (d) of T.A. 1930 and there was no higher foreign value.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that the appeal to reappraisement referred to herein be submitted on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find and bold export value, as that value is defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1980, to be the proper value of the merchandise herein involved, and that such value was DM 215 per 100 kilos, f .o.b. Hamburg.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Exhibit 31.2 

 

AMTECH SYSTEMS, INC. AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) 

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, As Amended 

 

I, Robert T. Hass, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Amtech Systems, Inc.;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not containany 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 annualreport; 

 

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

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have: 

 

(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed underour supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is beingprepared; 

 

(b) evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’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 theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting.
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

In connection with the Annual Report of ATC Healthcare, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the year ending February 28, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David Savitsky, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge,
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, as
                  amended; and

                  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
                  in all material respects, the financial condition and result
                  of operations of the Company.

/S/ DAVID SAVITSKY
David Savitsky
Chief Executive Officer
May 26, 2006
Exhibit 32.1

                           INTRAOP MEDICAL CORPORATION

                            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 Intraop Medical Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2007, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Donald A. Goer, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

         (1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


                                         /S/   DONALD A. GOER
                                         --------------------
                                         Donald A. Goer
                                         Chief Executive Officer

                                         Date:  May 14, 2007


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Intraop Medical Corporation and will be retained by Intraop Medical
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 147 (Thursday, July 31, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41050-41051]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20112]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

[Docket No. 97-14]


Notice of Filing of Petition for Declaration Order

    In the matter of Surety Bond coverage of non-vessel operating 
common carrier activities.

    Notice is given that a petition for declaratory order has been 
filed by Intercargo Insurance Company, Inc., seeking that the Federal 
Maritime Commission terminate a controversy and remove any uncertainty 
which may exist with respect to: (a) Whether a non-vessel-operating 
common carrier (``NVOCC'') surety bond covers claims for unpaid freight 
charges on a shipment when the NVOCC principal to an NVOCC bond acts as 
a forwarding agent on behalf of a disclosed shipper, and not a as a 
shipper or common carrier, and (b) whether a surety is entitled to 
review

[[Page 41051]]

a default judgment--or any judgment not defended by the NVOCC or its 
surety--to determine whether a claim is within the scope of the bond.
    Interested persons may inspect and obtain a copy of the petition at 
the Office of the Secretary, Room 1046, Federal Maritime Commission, 
800 North Capital Street, NW., Washington, DC 20573-0001. Interested 
persons may reply to the petition by submitting an original and 15 
copies of the reply to the Secretary, at the above address, on or 
before August 25, 1997. A copy of the reply also shall be served on 
petitioner's attorney, Henry P. Gonzalez, Esq., Carlos Rodriguez & 
Associates, 1710 Rhode Island Ave., NW., Tenth Floor, Washington, DC 
20036, and on counsel for Wilhelmsen Lines A/S, Alan Nakazawa, Esq., 
Williams Wooley Cogswell Nakazawa & Russell, 111 West Ocean Boulevard, 
Suite 2000, Long Beach, California 90802-4614. Replies shall contain 
the complete factual and legal presentation of the replying party as to 
the desired resolution of the petition (See 46 CFR 502.68(d)).
Joseph C. Polking,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-20112 Filed 7-30-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-M
No. 99-786.

#### HJB, Inc., et al. *v.*AmeriSource Corp. et al.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
No. 96-5128.

#### Demint *v.*United States.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 152 (Thursday, August 7, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42537-42538]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20804]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-116-005]


Koch Gateway Pipeline Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

August 1, 1997.
    Take notice that on July 30, 1997, Koch Gateway Pipeline Company 
(Koch) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth 
Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets to be effective 
January 1, 1997:

Third Revised Sheet No. 1410
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 1411

    Koch states that these revised tariff sheets are filed to comply 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory

[[Page 42538]]

Commission's ``Order on Rehearing'' issued on July 21, 1997 in Docket 
No. RP97-116-004. As directed, Koch revised the tariff sheets to allow 
Customers requesting new firm transportation thirty (30) days to 
execute a service agreement after its tender by Koch if the term of the 
contract is greater than one year and the agreement to be executed is 
not identical to the original request for service submitted by the 
Customer. If the original request by the Customer is identical to the 
contract to be executed then the tariff language approved in a letter 
order dated June 6, 1997, shall remain in effect.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Regulations. All such protest must be filed as provided in 
Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining appropriate action to be 
taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-20804 Filed 8-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
No. 42177.

#### Protests 980018-G, etc., of Challenge Cream *&*Butter Association et al. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Kraft*v. *United States*(T. D. 47955) the protests were sustained.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

February 24, 2009 

p0217 

Order 

 

February 24, 2009 

137378(34) 

 

DAVID McMILLIAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 137378 

 COA: 286371 

Wayne CC: 03-325112-CZ 

DTE ENERGY, 

 Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s November 

25, 2008 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order 

was entered erroneously.
#### Ronald L. Dauson, Appellant, v Toski Schaefer & Co., P. C., et al., Respondents.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[614 NYS2d 359]

Appeal unanimously dismissed without costs *(see, Matter of Laborers Inti. Union v Shevlin-Manning, Inc.,*147 AD2d 977). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Mintz, J. —Summary Judgment.) Present—Green, J. P., Balio, Lawton, Wesley and Boehm, JJ.
EXHIBIT
32.2







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 Quarterly Report of nFinanSe Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-Q for the period ended September 27, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Raymond P. Springer,
in my capacity as 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:





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.







/s/ Raymond P.
      SpringerDate: 
      November 11, 2008
            Raymond
      P. Springer
              Secretary
      and Chief Financial Officer