alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

|I, Ted A. Fernandez, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, certify that:
|------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                        
|1.                                                                      
|                                                                        
|2.                                                                      
|                                                                        
|3.                                                                      
|                                                                        
|4.                                                                      
|                                                                        
|                                                                        
|                                                                        
|                                                                        
|                                                                        
|                                                                        
|                                                                        
|                                                                        
|                                                                        
|5.                                                                      
|                                                                        
|                                                                        
|                                                                        
|                                                                        
|                                                                        

| |                         |                                       
| | ----------------------- | --------------------------------------
| | Date:  March
  15, 2004 | /s/ Ted A. Fernandez                  
| |                         |                                       
| |                         | Ted A. Fernandez                      
| |                         | Chairman and Chief Executive
  Officer
| |                         | Answerthink, Inc.                     
| |                         |                                       

---

---
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1136 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1136

To facilitate the provision by members of the Armed Forces of testimony 
on the military value of military installations in connection with the 
          2005 round of defense base closure and realignment.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 26, 2005

   Mr. Thune (for himself, Mr. Johnson, Ms. Collins, Ms. Snowe, Mr. 
 Sununu, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Domenici, Mr. 
 Dodd, and Mr. Bingaman) introduced the following bill; which was read 
         twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To facilitate the provision by members of the Armed Forces of testimony 
on the military value of military installations in connection with the 
          2005 round of defense base closure and realignment.

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

SECTION 1. TESTIMONY BY MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES IN CONNECTION WITH 
              THE 2005 ROUND OF DEFENSE BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT.

    (a) Testimony Authorized.--The Secretary of Defense shall permit 
any member of the Armed Forces to provide to the Defense Base Closure 
and Realignment Commission testimony on the military value of a 
military installation inside the United States for purposes of the 
consideration by the Commission of the Secretary's recommendations for 
the 2005 round of defense base closure and realignment under section 
2914(d) of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A 
of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note).
    (b) Protection Against Retaliation.--No member of the Armed Forces 
may be discharged, demoted, suspended, threatened, harassed, or in any 
other manner discriminated against because such member provided, caused 
to be provided, or is about to provide testimony under subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```
October 31, 1941

No. 46535.

#### Protests 981907-G, etc., of Sears, Roebuck & Co.

Abstract 46334. Plaintiffs’ application for rehearing granted.
# C_2013189EN.01001301.xml

| 29.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 189/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 189/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Pau (France) lodged on 6 May 2013 — Khaled Boudjlida v Préfet des Pyrénées-Atlantiques

(Case C-249/13)

2013/C 189/25

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal administratif de Pau

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Khaled Boudjlida

Applicant:

Defendant: Préfet des Pyrénées-Atlantiques

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | What is the extent of the right to be heard laid down by Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union for an illegally staying third-country national in respect of whom a decision falls to be taken as to whether or not he is to be returned? In particular, does that right include the right to be put in a position to analyse the information relied on against him as regards his right of residence, to express his point of view, in writing or orally, with a sufficient period of reflection, and to enjoy the assistance of counsel of his own choosing? |
| --- | --- |

1.

What is the extent of the right to be heard laid down by Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union for an illegally staying third-country national in respect of whom a decision falls to be taken as to whether or not he is to be returned? In particular, does that right include the right to be put in a position to analyse the information relied on against him as regards his right of residence, to express his point of view, in writing or orally, with a sufficient period of reflection, and to enjoy the assistance of counsel of his own choosing?

| 2. | If necessary, must the extent of that right be adjusted or limited in view of the general interest objective of the return policy set out in Directive 2008/115? (1) |
| --- | --- |

2.

If necessary, must the extent of that right be adjusted or limited in view of the general interest objective of the return policy set out in Directive 2008/115? (1)

1

| 3. | If so, what adjustments or limitations must be made, and on the basis of what criteria should they be established? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If so, what adjustments or limitations must be made, and on the basis of what criteria should they be established?

---

(1)  Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98).

1

---
#### Mary STONE, Appellant, v. Philip G. STONE, Appellee.

No. 76-2088.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 25, 1977.

Martin D. Berg, Miami, for appellant.

Jeffrey P. Wasserman and Merle Litman of Litman, Muchnick & Wasserman, Hollywood, for appellee.

DAUKSCH, Judge.

Upon a review of the evidence we find the trial court erred in reducing the amount of alimony from $200 to $50 per week when the evidence would only support a reduction to $100 per week. In all other respects the Order is affirmed. This cause is remanded for the entry of an order in compliance herewith.

*81AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED and REMANDED.

DOWNEY and LETTS, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 99.2



                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I certify, pursuant to U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for
the quarter ended June 30, 2003, fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents in all material respect the
financial condition and results of operations of Ashcroft Homes Corporation.

Date:    September 16, 2003           By: /s/ Joseph A. Oblas
       ---------------------               ---------------------------
                                           Joseph A. Oblas,
                                           Principal Financial Officer




<PAGE>
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# DLA Land and Maritime Timeline of the Past 60 Years

By James HarlessDLA Land and Maritime Public Affairs

                COLUMBUS, Ohio  –              
The Defense Logistics Agency Land and Maritime based at the Defense Supply Center Columbus has a long history of support to our nation’s forces. The installation was dedicated in 1918 to expedite shipments of supplies to troops serving with the Allied Expeditionary Force in France during World War I and on January 1, 1963, the installation was assigned to the Defense Supply Agency (now the Defense Logistics Agency) and combined with the Defense Construction Supply Center. Although the installation name has changed many times throughout the years, the mission remains the same — to support American’s Armed Forces and her allies. See the timeline for some of the Central Ohio logistics center's key moments in the early days of the agency.

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

DLA 60th AnniversaryDLA 60th Anniversary L&M
Case Wo. 6,666.

#### GRAHAM et al. v. The ESCORIAZA.

[N. Y. Times,

Nov. 16, 1852.]

District Court, S. D. New York.

1852.

Maritime Liens — Supplies—Home Poet.

[There is no lien for supnlies procured from another state by a vessel lying in her home port.]

Mr. Hasket, for libellants.

F. B. Sherman, for claimants.

Before BETTS, District Judge.

In admiralty. Suit in rem to recover value of a suit of sails furnished the bark. Adjudged that a vessel owned in one state, and receiving supplies in her home port, from a different state, is not chargeable therefor in admiralty out of her domestic port The credit is personal to her owner or master. Decree for claimants, and costs.
Exhibit 32.1




AMTECH SYSTEMS, INC. AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES
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 Amtech Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended September
30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jong S. Whang, President and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.
|--- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|By |  | /s/ Jong S. Whang Jong S. Whang President and Chief Executive Officer Date: January 30, 2006
|-- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
No. 40568.

#### Protests 233470-G, etc., of Specialty Trading Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the atomizers in question were held dutiable at 40 percent under paragraph 339. *Rice*v. *United States*(T. D. 49373) cited.
# Publicatieblad C 48/2013

| | ISSN 1977-0995
  doi:10.3000/19770995.C_2013.048.nld |
| --- | --- |
| Publicatieblad
  van de Europese Unie | C 48 |
| | |
| Uitgave in de Nederlandse taal | Mededelingen en bekendmakingen | 56e jaargang19 februari 2013 |

ISSN 1977-0995

doi:10.3000/19770995.C_2013.048.nld

Publicatieblad

van de Europese Unie

C 48

Uitgave in de Nederlandse taal

Mededelingen en bekendmakingen

56e jaargang19 februari 2013

---

| Nummer | Inhoud | Bladzijde |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Adviezen |
| | BESTUURLIJKE PROCEDURES |
| | Europees Parlement |
| 2013/C 048/01 | Besluit | 1 |

Nummer

Inhoud

Bladzijde

V   Adviezen

BESTUURLIJKE PROCEDURES

Europees Parlement

2013/C 048/01

Besluit

1

| NL | |
| --- | --- |

NL

---

V Adviezen

BESTUURLIJKE PROCEDURES

Europees Parlement

| 19.2.2013 | NL | Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie | C 48/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.2.2013

NL

Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie

C 48/1

---

BESLUIT

2013/C 48/01

DE SECRETARIS-GENERAAL VAN HET EUROPEES PARLEMENT,

Gezien Verordening (EEG, Euratom, EGKS) nr. 259/68 van de Raad, gewijzigd bij Verordening (EG, Euratom) nr. 723/2004 en laatstelijk gewijzigd bij Verordening (EU, Euratom) nr. 1080/2010 van het Europees Parlement en de Raad van 24 november 2010 tot wijziging van het Statuut van de ambtenaren van de Europese Gemeenschappen en van de regeling welke van toepassing is op de andere personeelsleden van deze Gemeenschappen en met name artikel 30 daarvan,

Gezien het besluit van het Bureau van 3 mei 2004 betreffende de delegatie van de bevoegdheden van het tot aanstelling bevoegde gezag (TABG) en het tot aangaan van aanstellingsovereenkomsten bevoegd gezag (TAABG), laatstelijk gewijzigd door het Bureau op 4 mei 2009,

Gezien de datum van verstrijken van de geldigheidsduur, te weten 31 december 2012, van de volgende reservelijsten van het Europees Parlement:

PE/96/A, PE/97/A, A/94, A/95, A/96, AD/4/08, PE/99/S, PE/103/S, PE/104/S, PE/106/S, PE/107/S, PE/109/S, PE/117/S, PE/118/S, C/348, AST/1/2005, AST/1/2006, AST/5/08, PE/69/S, PE/96/S, PE/110/S, PE/119/S,

Gezien het advies van de paritaire commissie van 21 november 2012,

HEEFT HET VOLGENDE BESLUIT VASTGESTELD:

Artikel 1

De geldigheidsduur van de reservelijsten:

AD/4/08, PE/99/S, PE/103/S, PE/104/S, PE/106/S, PE/107/S, PE/109/S, PE/117/S, PE/118/S, AST/5/08, PE/96/S, PE/110/S, PE/119/S;

wordt verlengd tot en met 31 december 2013.

Artikel 2

De geldigheidsduur van de reservelijsten:

PE/96/A, PE/97/A, A/94, A/95, A/96, C/348, AST/1/05, AST/1/06 en PE/69/S

wordt niet verlengd.

Gedaan te Luxemburg, 20 december 2012.

Klaus WELLE

Secretaris-generaal

---
# C_2013086EN.01001002.xml

| 23.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht (Germany) lodged on 10 January 2013 — Bayer CropScience AG

(Case C-11/13)

2013/C 86/16

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundespatentgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant and appellant: Bayer CropScience AG

Applicant and appellant:

Question referred

Question referred

The following question is referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 3(1) and of Article 1.8 and 1.3 of Regulation (EC) No 1610/96: (1)

1

Are the terms ‘product’ in Article 3(1) and Article 1.8 and ‘active substance’ in Article 1.3 of that regulation to be interpreted as covering a safener?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for plant protection products (OJ 1996 L 198, p. 30).

1

---
```

[111th Congress Public Law 128]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[[Page 123 STAT. 3487]]

Public Law 111-128
111th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
116 North West Street in Somerville, Tennessee, as the ``John S. Wilder 
     Post Office Building''. <<NOTE: Jan. 29, 2010 -  [H.R. 1817]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. JOHN S. WILDER POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 116 North West Street in Somerville, Tennessee, shall be 
known and designated as the ``John S. Wilder Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``John S. 
Wilder Post Office Building''.

    Approved January 29, 2010.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 1817:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 155 (2009):
            June 3, 4, considered and passed House.
            Dec. 21, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
EX-10.54



 





Exhibit 10.54




 Amendment to Services and License Agreement 




          This is an Amendment (“Amendment”) to the Services and License Agreement dated April 27,
2007, between The Princeton Review, Inc. a Delaware corporation (“TPR”) and Higher Edge Marketing
Services, Inc., a California corporation (“Licensee”) (“the Agreement”). This Amendment is hereby
entered into and effective as of September 7, 2007 (“Effective Date”). Capitalized terms used in
this Amendment but not defined herein shall have the meaning assigned to such terms in the
Agreement.




          WHEREAS, TPR and Licensee desire to amend the Agreement;




          NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are
hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows:




          The Agreement is amended to omit Section 14 in its entirety and replace it with: “14.
Intentionally Blank.”




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	THE PRINCETON REVIEW, INC.	 	 	 	HIGHER EDGE MARKETING SERVICES, INC.
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ Stephen Melvin
	 	 	 	By:
	 	/s/ Young Shin
	 

	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Title:

	 	CFO
	 	 	 	Title:
	 	President
	 

	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Date:

	 	9/12/07
	 	 	 	Date:
	 	9/12/07
!(

!(

!(

Cherokee Lake Recreation

Area USFS

£¤6

£¤64

UV6

UV294

15

14

!(16

!(

!(

Cherokee Lake Recreation

Area USFS

£¤6

£¤64

UV6

UV294

15

14

16

\\alismurphy\home\mprlm\projects\landplan\maps\Hiwassee_land_plan\Hiwassee_land_plan_for_Web.mxd

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000

Feet /

Hiwassee Reservoir

Land Management Plan Jul 24, 2008

Tile: C2
No. 40538.

#### Protest 916952-G of Abraham & Straus, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Outerwear in chief value of wool similar to that involved in *United States*v. *International Clearing House*(24 C. C. P. A. 117, T. D. 48416) was held dutiable at 50 cents per pound and 50 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1114 as claimed.
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Lonnie WOODS v. Ross MAGGIO, Warden, etc.

No. 60439.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 27, 1977.

In re: Lonnie Woods applying for remedial writ of certiorari.

Writ denied.
#### S. H. Pomerance Co., Inc. *v.*United States

No. 7789.

Entry No. 735502, etc.

(Decided January 30, 1950)

*Edward K. Kennedy*for the plaintiff.

*David N, Edelstein,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

It has been agreed between the parties hereto that the issues herein relating to the merchandise the subject of these appeals are the same in all material respects as those decided in *United States*v. *Gothic Watch Co.,*23 Cust. Ct. 235, Reap. Dec. 7712, affirming the judgment in *Gothic Watch Co.*v. *United States,*19 Cust. Ct. 309, Reap. Dec. 7438, and that the record in Reap. Dec. 7712, *supra,*may be incorporated herein.

Upon the agreed facts, I find that the attempted appraisement embodied in the second return of value by the appraiser of the merchandise covered by each of the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the annexed schedule, which is marked “A” and made a part of this decision, was illegal, null, and void, and that the appraiser’s original return of value in each case, as reported by him to the collector of customs, constituted his appraisal of the merchandise pursuant to section 500 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1500), and was final and conclusive in the absence of any appeal pursuant to section 501 of said act (19 U. S. C. § 1501).

Judgment will be entered accordingly.