alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
GPO USE ONLY 

Date Contractor Code 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 

Evaluation Sample Certificate 

A. SAMPLE PURPOSE. I understand that the accompanying printing/binding sample(s) submitted to the Government

Publishing Office will be inspected against the Quality Assurance Through Attributes Program (QATAP), for the purpose of 

assisting in indicating the quality capability of the production plant of the firm identified below. 

B. SAMPLE PRODUCTION. I hereby certify that with the exception of any information described in this certificate, the 

accompanying samples were produced in the following plant by the following firm, and completed during the 6 months 

preceding their submission: 

Firm Name 

Plant Address 

C. SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION. This certification applies to the sample(s) identified below, which I have numbered and 

initialed (in the upper right hand corner of their first page) to correspond with the following listing. All production was done 

in the above identified plant, by the above identified firm, except for the supplied or subcontracted portions, if any, as 

listed. (If no exceptions,enter “None”.) 

Item No. Title or Description	 Production Exception(s) 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

(If necessary, continue on plain paper labeled: “Evaluation Sample Certificate”. Include date, firm name, and certifier’s name. 

Use the same numbers as in C.)
	

D. CERTIFICATION. I am an officer, partner, or owner of the firm submitting the above listed sample(s); or have been

listed as a contact person in the firm's registration information on file with the Government Publishing Office Contractor

Connection https://contractorconnection.gpo.gov. I hereby certify that the above statements are true. 

This certification concerns a matter within the jurisdiction of an agency of the United States, and the making of a false, fictitious, 

or fraudulent certification may render the maker subject to prosecution under Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001. 

Name and Title 

Signature Date 

GPO Form 2689 

08/16
Petition for Writ of Mandamus is DENIED; Opinion Filed March 14, 2013. 

# S

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05

- 13

- 00319

- CV
IN RE: W.W.H. , Relator On Appeal from the 301st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF

- 12

- 15156
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices O’Neill , Lang

- Miers, and Evans Opinion by Justice Evans Relator contends the trial judge erred in denying her plea to the juri sdiction. The facts and issues are well known to the parties, so we need not recount them herein. Based on the record before us, we conclude relator has not shown she is entitled to the relief requested. See

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(a); Walker v. Packer , 8 27 S.W.2d 833, 839

- 40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Accordingly, we DENY relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

130319F.P05 /David W. Evans/

DAVID W. EVANS JUSTICE
# Official Journal L 103/2010

| | ISSN 1725-2555
  doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2010.103.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 103 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5323 April 2010 |

ISSN 1725-2555

doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2010.103.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 103

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5323 April 2010

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | RULES OF PROCEDURE |
| | * | Rules of Procedure of the Court of Auditors of the European Union | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

RULES OF PROCEDURE

*

Rules of Procedure of the Court of Auditors of the European Union

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-01-2000
<CASH>                                       1,582,888
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  621,265
<ALLOWANCES>                                    18,721
<INVENTORY>                                  2,101,450
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,429,896
<PP&E>                                       4,485,544
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,066,707
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,188,333
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          544,067
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        21,315
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,188,333
<SALES>                                        969,538
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               969,538
<CGS>                                          584,392
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  303,143
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,618
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                151,532
<INCOME-TAX>                                    62,700
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             88,832
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    88,832
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .04


</TABLE>
#### JOSEPH F. HUGHES & CO., INC. *v.*PIONEER FIREPROOF DOOR CORPORATION

[No. 61,

September Term, 1962.]

*Decided November 9, 1962.*

*37The cause was argued before Bruñe, C. J., and Henderson, Prescott, Marbury and Sybert, JJ.

*William B. Kempton*for appellant.

*Melvin J. Sykes,*with whom was *Philip Heller Sachs*on the brief, for appellee.

PER Curiam.

In the first of the two appeals involved here, the defendant-appellant questions the validity of a judgment rendered against it in favor of the plaintiff-appellee in a suit to recover the-agreed price for five metal fire doors furnished by appellee as subcontractor for appellant, which was the general contractor in the construction of a high school. The dispute turned on whether under the contract between the parties, the appellant or the appellee was required to supply the hardware, such as. locks, hinges, etc., for the doors delivered by appellee without such accessories. Claiming breach of contract on the part of the appellee, the appellant filed a counterclaim to recover costs and expenses of installing substitute doors and accessories. The second appeal is from a judgment entered for appellee on the counterclaim.

There was a provision in the subcontract between the parties that the job was to be done in accordance with the specifications of the general contract, which provided that subcontractors would be responsible for hardware except as provided to the contrary in any subcontract. Although the subcontract specifically excluded the supplying and installation of hardware, appellant contended it was somewhat ambiguous as to fire doors. In order to clear up any ambiguity which may have existed, the trial court admitted, over appellant’s objections, a letter from appellee to appellant and two letters between appellee and one of its agents, which made it clear that appellee had no intention of *38supplying the hardware and that the intention was understood by the appellant. These letters corroborated the testimony of appellee’s agent that he had explicitly told appellant’s president, prior to execution of the subcontract, that appellee’s bid did not include hardware.

The plain wording of the subcontract makes it apparent that appellee was not required to supply the hardware. Even if there had been ambiguity, it would have to be resolved against the appellant as drafter of the subcontract. *U. S. F. & G. v. Nat. Pav. Co., 228*Md. 40, 50. With respect to the letters, even if we assume, without deciding, that they were inadmissible, the information contained therein was established by other competent evidence and thus the letters were merely cumulative and their admission harmless. *Eisenberg, Admin. v. Air Cond., Inc.,*225 Md. 324, 339.

Finding no prejudicial error below, we will affirm both judgments.

*Both judgments affirmed; appellant to pay the costs.*
[No. 1125-1.

Division One—Panel 1.

April 3, 1972.]

#### Henry L. Daniels *et al., Appellants,*v. Washington Asphalt Company *et al., Respondents.*
SERVED: JUNE 10, 2011 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

GRETCHEN HUNT 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA-2011-0295 

^•.qTr^FHTOF 

ja ' \ w-1 nf. 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF PROCEEDING 

By notice served June 3, 2011, Complainant states that, pursuant to settlement, it 

withdraws its Complaint in the above-proceeding. Accordingly, pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.215, 

this proceeding is dismissed with prejudice. 

The FAA shall send the Judge and the Docket a copy of any compromise order or final 

order assessing civil penalty. 

SO ORDERED. 

Ronnie A. Yoder 

Chief Administrative L; 

Attachment - Service List 
FDMS NO. FAA-2011-0295 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL &<IN1 COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2Wi000' 

ONE COPY 

Gretchen Hunt, Respondent 

13211 Winterberry Way 

Princeton, NJ 08540 

TEL: 

FAX: 

Gerald A. Ellis, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel, ASO-7 

Southern Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P.O. Box 20636 

Atlanta GA 30320 

TEL: 404-305-5200 

FAX: 404-305-5223 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder, 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20, Room E12-320 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2142 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by je>xpe<)it6d courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., WflburiWright Building—Suit? 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

- 2 -
# C_2020201EN.01004801.xml

| 15.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 201/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 201/48

---

Action brought on 17 April 2020 — Residencial Palladium v EUIPO — Fiesta Hotels & Resorts (PALLADIUM HOTELS & RESORTS)

(Case T-207/20)

(2020/C 201/61)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Residencial Palladium, SL (Ibiza, Spain) (represented by: D. Solana Giménez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fiesta Hotels & Resorts, SL (Ibiza)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark PALLADIUM HOTELS & RESORTS — European Union trade mark No 2 915 304

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 February 2020 in Case R 231/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul and declare inapplicable the contested decision and order EUIPO to proceed with the application for a declaration of invalidity brought by Residencial Palladium; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul and declare inapplicable the contested decision and order EUIPO to proceed with the application for a declaration of invalidity brought by Residencial Palladium;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 60(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council

---
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CertificationPursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350As Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, John A. Raasch, Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer), certify that this quarterly report on Form10-QSB for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2004 fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained herein fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of Gateway Energy Corporation and its subsidiaries for the periodspresented.

 

 
| Date: November 16, 2004 | /s/ John A. Raasch                                          |   |
|------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                         | John A. Raasch                                              |
|                         | President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Operating Officer |
|                         | (Principal Executive Officer)                               |

 

----
# C_2020339EN.01003101.xml

| 12.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 339/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 339/31

---

Action brought on 21 August 2020 — Wolf Oil v EUIPO — Rolf Lubricants (ROLF)

(Case T-531/20)

(2020/C 339/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Wolf Oil Corp. (Hemiksem, Belgium) (represented by: T. Heremans and L. Depypere, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rolf Lubricants GmbH (Leverkusen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trademark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark ROLF — International registration designating the European Union No 1 286 835

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 June 2020 in Case R 1958/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | in the alternative, alter the contested decision so that its action is held to be well-founded and, consequently its opposition upheld; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, alter the contested decision so that its action is held to be well-founded and, consequently its opposition upheld;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 66 (Monday, April 7, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 19079]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-07720]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES

[Public Notice 2014-6004]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals Submissions, 
and Approvals

AGENCY: Export-Import Bank of the United States.

ACTION: Submission for OMB review and comments request.

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

    Form Title: EIB 92-79 Broker Registration Form.
SUMMARY: The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank), as a 
part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent 
burden, invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to 
comment on the proposed information collection, as required by the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Our customers will be able to submit 
this form on paper or electronically. This form is used by insurance 
brokers to register with Export-Import Bank. It provides Export-Import 
Bank staff with the information necessary to make a determination of 
the eligibility of the broker to receive commission payments under 
Export-Import Bank's credit insurance programs.
    Form can be viewed at http://www.exim.gov/pub/pending/eib92-79.pdf.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 7, 2014 to be assured 
of consideration.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically on 
WWW.REGULATIONS.GOV or by mail to Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20038 Attn: OMB 3048-0024.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title and Form Number: EIB 92-27 Broker Registration Form.
    OMB Number: 3048-0024.
    Type of Review: Regular.
    Need and Use: This form is used by insurance brokers to register 
with Export Import Bank. The form provides Export Import Bank staff 
with the information necessary to make a determination of the 
eligibility of the broker to receive commission payments under Export 
Import Bank's credit insurance programs.
    Affected Public: This form affects entities engaged in brokering 
export credit insurance policies.
    Annual Number of Respondents: 50.
    Estimated Time per Respondent: 15 minutes.
    Government Review Time per Response: 2 hours.
    Frequency of Reporting or Use: Once every three years.
    Government Reviewing Time per Year: 100 hours.
    Average Wages per Hour: $42.50.
    Average Cost per Year: $4,250.
    Benefits and Overhead: 20%.
    Total Government Cost: $5,100.

Bonita Jones,
Program Analyst, Records Management Divison.
[FR Doc. 2014-07720 Filed 4-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
```
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11



JOHNSTON INDUSTRIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

EXHIBIT 11 - STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

The weighted average number of common and common share equivalents on a primary
basis are as follows:



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                     FOR THE       FOR THE
                                                   THREE MONTHS  THREE MONTHS
                                                      ENDED         ENDED
                                                    MARCH 29,     MARCH 30,
                                                       1997          1996
                                                   ------------  ------------
   <S>                                              <C>           <C>
   Weighted average common shares outstanding        10,379,163    10,571,249
   Shares issued from assumed exercise of
       incentive stock options (1)                      244,363         9,515
   Shares issued from assumed exercise of
       nonqualified stock options (1)                    86,186        60,952
                                                    -----------   -----------
   Weighted average number of shares outstanding,
       as adjusted                                   10,709,712   $10,641,716
                                                    ===========   ===========
   Income from continuing operations                $ 1,360,000   $ 1,279,000
   Income from discontinued operations                  164,000       969,000
   Extraordinary loss                                        --      (527,000)
                                                    -----------   -----------
   Net Income                                         1,524,000     1,721,000
   Dividends on Preferred Stock                         (41,000)       (2,000)
                                                    -----------   -----------
   Net Income available to common
       stockholders                                 $ 1,483,000   $ 1,719,000
                                                    ===========   ===========
   Earnings (Loss) per common share:
       Income from continuing operations            $       .12   $       .12
       Discontinued operations                              .02           .09
       Extraordinary loss                                   .--          (.05)
                                                    -----------   -----------
   Earnings per common share                        $       .14   $       .16
                                                    ===========   ===========
</TABLE>


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

(1)   Shares issued from assumed exercise of options included the number of
      incremental shares which result from applying the "treasury stock method"
      for options.

Note: Fully diluted earnings per share are not presented because the
      difference from primary earnings per share is insignificant for all
      periods presented.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

January 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 130943-4(81) Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, CHARLENE BETH LEZELL, Justices Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 130943-4 COA: 256415; 257384 Oakland CC: 2003-047347-NO HILLER, INC., and ORCHARD MALL, LLC, Defendants-Appellees.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s September 20, 2006 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it doe s not appear that the order was entered erroneously.

d0122 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

January 29, 2007

Clerk
| Name      of Subsidiary                               | State      of Jurisdiction of Incorporation | %      Owned |
|-------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------|--------------|
|                                                  |                                        |         |
| ANADIGICS      (U.K.) Limited                         | United      Kingdom                         | 100%         |
| ANADIGICS,      Limited                               | Israel                                      | 100%         |
| ANADIGICS      Denmark ApS                            | Denmark                                     | 100%         |
| ANADIGICS      Acquisition Corp                       | Delaware                                    | 100%         |
| ANADIGICS      Holding Corp.                          | Delaware                                    | 100%         |
| Broadband & Wireless      Investors, Incorporated | Delaware                                    | 100%         |
| ANADIGICS      China Corporation                      | China                                       | 100%         |
| ANADIGICS      China Holdings Corp.                   | Cayman      Islands                         | 100%         |