alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>      5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated financial statements and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           3,100
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       29
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,390
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,987
<PP&E>                                          18,896
<DEPRECIATION>                                     313
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  31,147
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,797
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                            15
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,689
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    31,147
<SALES>                                         17,371
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                17,371
<CGS>                                            9,962
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,962
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,471
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,471
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,471
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .23
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

 

In connectionwith the Quarterly Report of Retractable Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the UnitedStates Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),the undersigned Thomas J. Shaw, Chief Executive Officer, and Douglas W. Cowan,Chief Financial Officer, do hereby 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 therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

(2)           The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the issuer.

 

 
| Date:  November 14, 2007 |                                        |
|--------------------------|---------------------------------------------|
|                     |                                        |
|                     |                                        |
|                     | s/ Thomas J.  Shaw                          |   |
|                     | THOMAS J.  SHAW                             |
|                     | PRESIDENT,  CHAIRMAN, AND                   |
|                     | CHIEF  EXECUTIVE OFFICER                    |
|                     |                                        |
|                     |                                        |
|                     | s/ Douglas  W. Cowan                        |   |
|                     | DOUGLAS W.  COWAN                           |
|                     | VICE  PRESIDENT AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER |
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 131 (Monday, July 9, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 31775]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14582]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Interchangeable Virtual Instruments Foundation, 
Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on June 14, 2018, pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Interchangeable Virtual 
Instruments Foundation, Inc. (``IVI Foundation'') has filed written 
notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal 
Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The 
notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's 
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual 
damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Aeroflex/Cobham 
has changed its name to VIAVI Solutions Company, Wichita, KS.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and IVI Foundation intends to file 
additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On May 29, 2001, IVI Foundation filed its original notification 
pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of 
the Act on July 30, 2001 (66 FR 39336).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on December 19, 
2017. A notice was published in the Federal Registe pursuant to Section 
6(b) of the Act on January 22, 2018 (83 FR 3025).

Suzanne Morris,
Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics Unit,Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2018-14582 Filed 7-6-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4410-11-P
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.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration #15580 and #15581; NEBRASKA Disaster Number NE-00070]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Nebraska (FEMA-4375-DR), dated 06/29/2018. *Incident:*
                         Severe Winter Storm and Straight-line Winds. *Incident Period:*
                         04/13/2018 through 04/18/2018.
 DATES: Issued on 06/29/2018. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         08/28/2018. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         03/29/2019.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 06/29/2018, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:*
                    Antelope, Blaine, Boone, Boyd, Cheyenne, Clay, Custer, Deuel, Fillmore, Garfield, Gosper, Greeley, Hall, Hamilton, Holt, Howard, Keith, Knox, Logan, Loup, Madison, Merrick, Nance, Nuckolls, Pierce, Platte, Rock, Sherman, Valley, Webster, Wheeler. The Interest Rates are: Percent*For Physical Damage:*Non-Profit Organizations With Credit Available Elsewhere
2.500Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.500*For Economic Injury:*Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.500
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 15580B and for economic injury is 155810. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008) Rafaela Monchek, Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.


[FR Doc. 2018-14932 Filed 7-11-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
# C_2022359EN.01006701.xml

| 19.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 359/67 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 359/67

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2022 — Unimax Stationery v EUIPO — Mitsubishi Pencil (uni)

(Case T-369/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark uni - Absolute grounds for refusal - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Signs or indications which have become customary - Article 7(1)(d) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(d) of Regulation 2017/1001))

(2022/C 359/81)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Unimax Stationery (Daman, India) (represented by: E Amoah, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Mitsubishi Pencil Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: A. Perani and G. Ghisletti, lawyers)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 22 April 2021 (Case R 1909/2020-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Unimax Stationery to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Unimax Stationery to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 338, 23.8.2021.

---
Susanne M. Galbraith 611 Orr Street Miles City, Mt 59301 ' '-- ' --· f «-:, April10, 2013 Docket Operations M-30 West Building Ground Floor W 12-140 1200 New JerseyAvenue SE Washington, DC 20590; 3

Docket DOT-OST-1997-2605 Dear Sir orMadam, This letter is written in support ofcontinuing the Essential Air Service (EAS) to the communities ofMiles City and Lewistown. We are the fourth largest state in the Union. Ifyou tookthe following states; Road Island, Delaware, Connecticut, Hawaii, New Jersey, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, South Carolina, WestVirginia and Maryland and placed them in our state, you would still have enough area to insertDelaware eleven more times. As you see, we travel great distances to seek out essential services. While we have adequate medical facilities in our area, ifitis necessary to seek out specialists,_the nearest city would be Billings, MT or Denver, CO. The distance to each is 144 and 515, respectively. Additionally, Miles City is a medical hub for the surrounding communities and residents ofother areas travel large distances to Miles City, to see a medical provider. For example, ifit becomes necessary for a resident ofAlzada, MT to seek a specialist he/shewould need to travel280 miles. In addition, our area is nowin the mist ofan oil boom andthe cities in Southeastern Montana are all economically interconnected. We have many people working in the oil fields thatlive in "man camps" and whose families live in other cities and towns. Moreover, business representatives travel to these towns from other states. Ifone ofthe cities loses the ability to connectwith another city, Iforesee the other seven cities eventually losing their EAS. Because ofthe vastness ofMontana, itis vital thatwe keep EAS in all our cities. Montana is second onlyto Guam in military recruitment. Our soldiers eventually come home and need medical assistance. The main veterans' hospital is Fort Harrison, MT. Our Miles City soldiers and veterans musttravel roughly 6 hours, via automobile to Fort Harrison, to receive medical treatment. It is vital for our veterans to keep our EAS. i**~.J**With a little "tweaking" in the flight schedule and some additional marketing, Ibelieve that we can increase our EAS ridership. We, as a community, are committed todoingwhatever ittakes to keep this vital service. Iwould askthatyou allow us to keep our EAS and give us the needed time to make this a viable service to our communities. Thankyou. Best Regards, Susanne Galbraith City ofMiles City, Ward 1 Councilperson
#### Roberto COLON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-655.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 24, 1973.

Roberto Colon, in pro per.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and CHARLES CARROLL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This court, proceeding in the manner, outlined and recommended by the Supreme Court of the United States in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, having deferred ruling on a motion of the public defender to withdraw as counsel for the indigent-defendant and having furnished appellant with a copy of the public defender’s memorandum brief, and having allowed the appellant a reasonable specified time within which to raise any points that he chose in support of his appeal, and the appellant having failed to respond thereto, on consideration thereof upon full examination of the proceedings we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Whereupon, the public defender’s said motion to withdraw is granted and the order or judgment appealed is hereby affirmed.
# C_2022024EN.01001901.xml

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 18 October 2021 — K.R.; Other party: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

(Case C-637/21)

(2022/C 24/25)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: K.R.

Other party to the proceedings: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 16(4) of Directive 2004/38/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC be interpreted as meaning that any presence in the host Member State, however brief, of an EU citizen with a right of permanent residence, is sufficient to interrupt a period of absence exceeding two consecutive years? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 16(4) of Directive 2004/38/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC be interpreted as meaning that any presence in the host Member State, however brief, of an EU citizen with a right of permanent residence, is sufficient to interrupt a period of absence exceeding two consecutive years?

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is in the negative, what factors should be taken into account in determining whether a presence in the host Member State by such an EU citizen interrupts a period of absence from the host Member State exceeding two consecutive years? In that regard, is it relevant whether the EU citizen concerned relocated the centre of her interests to another Member State? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the negative, what factors should be taken into account in determining whether a presence in the host Member State by such an EU citizen interrupts a period of absence from the host Member State exceeding two consecutive years? In that regard, is it relevant whether the EU citizen concerned relocated the centre of her interests to another Member State?

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77.

---
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Goldfield Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the nine months ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John H. Sottile, Chairman of the Board of Directors, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
§ 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.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to The Goldfield Corporation and
will be retained by The Goldfield Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



/S/    JOHN H.
SOTTILEJohn H. SottileChairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)November 9, 2009
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 Magnetek, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Andrew G. Galef, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
U.S.C. Section 1350 and Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| |  | /s/ Andrew G. GalefAndrew G. Galef
Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer
| |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated
September 29, 2003

---

QuickLinks
**Exhibit 32-2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Goldfield Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Stephen R. Wherry, Senior Vice President, Treasurer, Assistant Secretary and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to The Goldfield Corporation and will be retained by The Goldfield Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

Date: November 14, 2006

|   | /s/ Stephen   R. Wherry                             |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                     |
|   | Stephen R.   Wherry                                 |
|   | Senior Vice   President, Treasurer,                 |
|   | Assistant   Secretary and Chief   Financial Officer |
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, 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 September 4, 2012

s0827 

# Order

September 4, 2012

144604

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 144604

COA: 307031

Wayne CC: 10

- 009568

- 01

THEO DEMEKO THOMAS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 19, 2011

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
# C_2022119EN.01001401.xml

| 14.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 119/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 119/14

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha — Spain) — Servicio de Salud de Castilla-La Mancha (SESCAM) v BF

(Case C-151/21) (1)

(Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clause 4 - Principle of non-discrimination - Field of public health - Calculation of length-of-service increments - National legislation refusing to take into account, as regards permanent staff regulated under administrative law, for the purpose of calculating length-of-service increments, periods corresponding to activities temporarily exercised in a higher professional category)

(2022/C 119/18)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Servicio de Salud de Castilla-La Mancha (SESCAM)

Respondent: BF

Operative part of the order

Clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, which is set out in the annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which provides that, for a permanent worker who temporarily performs duties in a professional category that is higher than the one to which he or she belongs, the three-yearly length-of-service increments to which he or she is entitled are those corresponding to that latter category, even though, for a fixed-term worker placed in the same situation, the three-yearly length-of-service increments correspond to those of the professional category in which his or her duties were actually performed.

---

(1)  Date lodged: 9 March 2021.

---