alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 this Quarterly Report of Goldspring, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert T. Faber,
Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his
knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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 result of operations of the Company.


August 16, 2004                                 /s/ Robert T. Faber
                                                -------------------------------
                                                    Robert T. Faber
                                                    Principal Financial Officer
1

The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Northern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1430

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Ricardo Sandoval-Cerrantes, also *

known as Ruben Sandoval, also known * [UNPUBLISHED]

as Ruben Murguia, also known as *

Thomas Johnson, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 5, 2007

Filed: January 17, 2007

___________

Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Ricardo Sandoval-Cerrantes (Cerrantes) appeals the 96-month prison sentence

the district court1

 imposed after he pleaded guilty to being an illegal alien found in the

United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). His counsel has moved to withdraw,

and in a brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), he argues that
-2-

Cerrantes’s sentence--at the top of the advisory Guidelines range--is unreasonable.

In a pro se motion, Cerrantes moves for appointment of new counsel.

We cannot say that Cerrantes’s sentence was unreasonable. The court

specifically declined to impose a more lenient sentence because of Cerrantes’s history

and characteristics, namely, his troubling criminal history; and counsel has not

succeeded in rebutting the presumption of reasonableness that attaches to a sentence

imposed within the advisory Guidelines range. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1)

(sentencing factors); United States v. Long Soldier, 431 F.3d 1120, 1123 (8th Cir.

2005) (relevant inquiry is whether court actually considered § 3553(a) factors and

whether appellate court’s review of those factors leads it to conclude that they support

finding of reasonableness); United States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717-18 (8th Cir.)

(sentence within Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable; defendant bears

burden to rebut presumption of reasonableness), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 840 (2005).

In his pro se motion Cerrantes appears to raise claims of an involuntary guilty

plea and ineffective assistance of counsel, neither of which is properly before us in

this direct criminal appeal. See United States v. Woods, 270 F.3d 728, 730 (8th Cir.

2001); United States v. Cain, 134 F.3d 1345, 1352 (8th Cir. 1998). Further, having

carefully reviewed the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80

(1988), we find no other nonfrivolous issues.

Accordingly we affrim the judgment, grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and

deny Cerrantes’s pro se motion for appointment of new counsel.

______________________________
# C_2013063EN.01002402.xml

| 2.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/24

---

Action brought on 30 December 2012 — Commission v Siemens

(Case T-579/12)

2013/C 63/50

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and W. Mölls, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Siemens AG (Munich, Germany)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Order Siemens AG to pay the applicant EUR 671 234 plus interest in the amount of 5 % above the base interest rate within the meaning of Paragraph 247 of the BGB (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, German Civil Code) as from the time when the action was brought; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order Siemens AG to pay the applicant EUR 671 234 plus interest in the amount of 5 % above the base interest rate within the meaning of Paragraph 247 of the BGB (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, German Civil Code) as from the time when the action was brought;

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant submits that under the contract concluded with the defendant it is entitled to demand compensation for the additional costs arising out of the delay in taking back the materials which have been put at its disposal. Such compensation also has to be paid under the German law applicable to the contract, more precisely under Paragraph 304 and also Paragraphs 280 and 286 of the BGB.

---
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 148 (Friday, August 1, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 41483]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20356]


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

UNITED STATES INFORMATION AGENCY


Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition; 
Determinations

    Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to 
the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 
985, 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978 (43 FR 
13359, March 29, 1978), and Delegation Order No. 85-5 of June 27, 1985 
(50 FR 27393, July 2, 1985), I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibit, ``The Private Collection of Edgar Degas'' (See 
list \1\), imported from abroad for the temporary exhibition without 
profit within the United States, are of cultural significance. These 
objects are imported pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign 
lenders. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the listed 
exhibit objects at The Metropolitan Museum of Art from on or about 
September 22, 1997, through January 11, 1998, is in the national 
interest. Public notice of these determinations is ordered to be 
published in the Federal Register.

    \1\ A copy of this list may be obtained by contacting Ms. Carol 
Epstein, Assistant General Counsel, at 202/619-6981, and the address 
is Room 700, U.S. Information Agency, 301 4th Street, S.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20547-0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: July 25, 1997.
Les Jin,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 97-20356 Filed 7-31-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8230-01-M
Sanitized Version

of 

ZT NIOSH
# C_2015236EN.01001002.xml

| 20.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 236/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 236/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands)) — P, S v Commissie Sociale Zekerheid Breda, College van Burgemeester en Wethouders van de gemeente Amstelveen

(Case C-579/13) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents - Directive 2003/109/EC - Article 5(2) and Article 11(1) - National legislation imposing on third-country nationals with long-term resident status a civic integration obligation, attested by an examination, under pain of a fine))

(2015/C 236/13)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Centrale Raad van Beroep

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: P, S

Applicants:

Defendants: Commissie Sociale Zekerheid Breda, College van Burgemeester en Wethouders van de gemeente Amstelveen

Defendants:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents and, in particular, Article 5(2) and Article 11(1) thereof do not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes on third-country nationals who already possess long-term resident status the obligation to pass a civic integration examination, under pain of a fine, provided that the means of implementing that obligation are not liable to jeopardise the achievement of the objectives pursued by that directive, which it is for the referring court to determine. Whether the long-term resident status was acquired before or after the obligation to pass a civic integration examination was imposed is irrelevant in that respect.

---

(1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.

1

---
Exhibit 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Howard Solovei, Chief Financial Officer of Intraop Medical Corporation,
certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Intraop Medical
Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

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

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible 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 under our 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 report is being prepared;

(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant'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 registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

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 the registrant's board of
directors:

(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely 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 control over
financial reporting.


                                                     /s/   Howard Solovei
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                         Howard Solovei
                                                         Chief Financial Officer

                                                         Dated: August 7, 2008
No. 45373.

#### Protest 3835-K of J. S. Hoffman Co. (Los Angeles).

*539Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the ham products in question were held dutiable at 3% cents per pound under paragrah 703 on the basis of the net weight of the contents of the cans less 10 percent allowance for the gelatinous material contained therein.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM STERLING
DRILLING FUND 1983-1 FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         145,635
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   45,126
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               190,761
<PP&E>                                       9,473,014
<DEPRECIATION>                               7,970,786
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,692,989
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,692,989<F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,692,989
<SALES>                                        386,254<F2>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               386,254
<CGS>                                          369,966
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  369,966
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    16,288
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.11<F3>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Other-SE is composed of partnership equity.
<F2>Sales - The sales line includes $7,175 of interest income
<F3>EPS-Primary is based upon limited partners share of net income divided by the
outstanding partnership units of 11,077
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service 

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. 

# ACTION:

Amended notice. 

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Earned Income Tax Credit Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted at the Internal Revenue Service, 1750 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC 20006. The Committee will be discussing issues pertaining to the IRS administration of the Earned Income Tax Credit. 

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Friday, June 1, 2007, 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., and Saturday, June 2, 2007, from 9 a.m. to 12 Noon ET. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Audrey Y. Jenkins at 1-888-912-1227 (toll-free), or 718-488-2085 (non toll-free). 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Earned Income Tax Credit Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Friday, June 1, 2007,  9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., and Saturday, June 2, 2007, from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. ET, at 1750 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC 20006. The public is invited to make oral comments. Individual comments will be limited to 5 minutes. For information contact Audrey Y. Jenkins as noted above. Notification of intent to participate in the meeting must be made with Ms. Jenkins. If you would like a written statement to be considered, send written comments to Ms. Audrey Y. Jenkins, TAP Office, 10 MetroTech Center, 625 Fulton Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201 or post your comments to the Web site:                     *http://www.improveirs.org.*

The agenda will include the following: Various issues pertaining to the IRS administration of the Earned Income Tax Credit. 

Dated: May 10, 2007. 

John Fay, 

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

 [FR Doc. E7-9531 Filed 5-16-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
# C_2015118EN.01000302.xml

| 13.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 February 2015 — European Commission v IPK International — World Tourism Marketing Consultants GmbH

(Case C-336/13 P) (1)

1

((Appeals - Commission decision ordering the repayment of financial assistance - Compliance with a judgment of the General Court of the European Union - Distinction between default interest and compensatory interest - Calculation of interest))

(2015/C 118/04)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: F. Dintilhac, G. Wilms and G. Zavvos, acting as Agents)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: IPK International — World Tourism Marketing Consultants GmbH (represented by: C. Pitschas, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in IPK International v Commission (T-671/11, EU:T:2013:163) to the extent that it orders the default interest payable by the European Commission to IPK International — World Marketing Consultants GmbH to be fixed on the basis of the amount of the principal debt, plus the interest that has already accrued; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in IPK International v Commission (T-671/11, EU:T:2013:163) to the extent that it orders the default interest payable by the European Commission to IPK International — World Marketing Consultants GmbH to be fixed on the basis of the amount of the principal debt, plus the interest that has already accrued;

| 2) | Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2)

Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;

| 3) | Orders that the default interest payable by the European Commission to IPK International — World Marketing Consultants GmbH be calculated solely on the basis of the amount of the principal debt; |
| --- | --- |

3)

Orders that the default interest payable by the European Commission to IPK International — World Marketing Consultants GmbH be calculated solely on the basis of the amount of the principal debt;

| 4) | Orders the European Commission and IPK International — World Marketing Consultants GmbH to bear their own costs in relation to the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

4)

Orders the European Commission and IPK International — World Marketing Consultants GmbH to bear their own costs in relation to the present proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.

1

---
#### Joab Bernard & Overton Bernard, plaintiffs in error, *vs.*John A. Parvin, defendant in error.

*Error to Muscatine.*

Under the territorial statute, suits brought upon any instrument of writing, made payable to a firm name, it is only necessary to set out and prove the partnership name.

This was an action of assumpsit brought by the plaintiffs against the defendant in error, upon a note of which the following is a copy :

“ $317,81. “ Bloomington, September 1, 1842.

“ One day after date, for value received, I promise to pay John A. Parvin, or order, three hundred and seventeen dollars and eighty-one cents, with interest at the rate of ten per cent per annum.

“ WM. BROWNELL.”

Endorsement.

“ November the 21, 1842, Í transfer the within note to J. & O. Bernard, with full recourse upon me.

“ JOHN A. PARVIN.”

The note was declared upon in the usual form, with,

1. A special count upon the note.

2. For money had and received.

3. For goods sold and delivered.

The defendant pleaded the general issue to the whole of the counts. 2d. the general issue to the second and third counts, and demurred specially to the first, for that the declaration did not allege any demand upon the maker, nor any notice of non payment to the endorser. This demurrer was afterwards withdrawn, and the case submitted to a jury at October term, 1843, and a verdict for the defendant.

*310On the trial the court charged the jury that it was incumbent upon the plaintiff, in order to his recovery, to prove that J. & O. Bernard was a firm composed of Joab Bernard and Overton Bernard, to which the plaintiffs excepted.

This is the error of which the plaintiffs complain.

Whicher, for plaintiffs in error.

Woodward, for defendant in error.

Pee Curiam:

Mason, Chief Justice.

The commencement of the declaration in this case reads as follows:

> “ Joab Bernard & Overton Bernard, merchants, trading under the name and style of J. &. O. Bernard, complain &c.”

The suit is brought against the defendant as endorser of a promissory note, which endorsement is in the words following :

> “ November the 21st, 1842, I transfer the within note to J. & O. Bernard, with full recourse upon me.

> (Signed) “ JOHN A. PARVIN.”

On the trial below, the court charged the jury, that it was incumbent upon the plaintiffs to prove, that the firm of J. & O. Bernard, is composed of Joab Bernard & Overton Bernard. This is assigned for error, and raises the only question presented by the case.

We think the court erred in giving the instruction. The statute declares that in all suits, brought upon any instrument of writing, made payable to partners trading together under their partnership name and style, it shall only be necessary to prove the partnership name and style, without proving the names of the individuals who compose the same. No direction is given as lo the shape of the commencement of the declaration, and although it would probably be as well to sue in the partnership name merely, still, as the statute makes no exceptions to the sweeping rule it has prescribed, we do not feel justified in making any.

The judgment below, will therefore be set aside and a new trial ordered.