alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

ANGELA C. WALDRON,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 123 WAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 15th day of July, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
# C_2021289EN.01002902.xml

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/29 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 10 May 2021 — Allianz Benelux SA v État belge, SPF Finances (Case C-295/21) (2021/C 289/41) Language of the case: French Referring court Cour d’appel de Bruxelles Parties to the main proceedings Appellant: Allianz Benelux SA Respondent: État belge, SPF Finances Question referred Is Article 4(1) of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States, ( 1 ) whether or not read in conjunction with the provisions of Directives 78/855/EEC (Third Directive) ( 2 ) and 82/891/EEC (Sixth Directive) ( 3 ) on company law, to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides that the distributed benefits covered by the Directive are included in the basis of assessment of the company receiving the dividends before 95 % of their total is deducted from that basis and, as the case may be, carried forward to subsequent tax years but which, in the absence of a specific provision stating, in the case of an operation involving the reorganisation of companies, that the deductions thus carried forward in the hand of the transferring company are transferred in full to the receiving company, has the effect that the profits covered are indirectly taxed at the time of that operation on account of the application of a provision which limits the transfer of those deductions in proportion to the share represented by the net tax assets before the operation involving the absorbed parts of the transferring company in the total, once again before the operation, of the net tax assets of the absorbing company and of the net tax value of the absorbed parts? ( 1 )  OJ 1990 L 225, p. 6. ( 2 )  Third Council Directive 78/855/EEC of 9 October 1978 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty concerning mergers of public limited liability companies (OJ 1978 L 295, p. 36). ( 3 )  Sixth Council Directive 82/891/EEC of 17 December 1982 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty, concerning the division of public limited liability companies (OJ 1982 L 378, p. 47).

---
#### Diane Helen WERLEY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-25.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 6, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
EXHIBIT 32



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND

PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the accompanying Form 10-Q of Golden West Financial Corporation for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2005, each of the undersigned, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1) | such Form 10-Q of Golden West Financial Corporation for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2005 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 such Form 10-Q of Golden West Financial Corporation for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2005 fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Golden West Financial Corporation.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|               |  |  |  |                                      
|-------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------
|               |  | 
|August 8, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/ Herbert M. Sandler               
|Date           |  |  |  | Herbert M. Sandler                   
|               |  |  |  | Chairman of the Board and            
|               |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer              
|               |  |  |  | Golden West Financial Corporation    
|               |  | 
|August 8, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/ Marion O. Sandler                
|Date           |  |  |  | Marion O. Sandler                    
|               |  |  |  | Chairman of the Board and            
|               |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer              
|               |  |  |  | Golden West Financial Corporation    
|               |  | 
|August 8, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/ Russell W. Kettell               
|Date           |  |  |  | Russell W. Kettell                   
|               |  |  |  | President and Chief Financial Officer
|               |  |  |  | Golden West Financial Corporation
<TABLE> <S> <C>

 <ARTICLE>                    5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
condensed consolidated balance sheet of Dictaphone Corporation at March 31, 1999
and the condensed  consolidated  statement of operations  for the 3 months ended
March 31, 1999 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-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                     JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                       MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                   4,760
<SECURITIES>                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                           91,862
<ALLOWANCES>                              2453
<INVENTORY>                             48,899
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       148,435
<PP&E>                                  71,259
<DEPRECIATION>                          36,226
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         453,764
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   89,755
<BONDS>                                362,688
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   45,146
<PREFERRED>                                  0
<COMMON>                                   130
<OTHER-SE>                             (58,118)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           453,764
<SALES>                                 58,576
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        82,611
<CGS>                                   43,450
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          76,082
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      10,139
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         (3,941)
<INCOME-TAX>                              (225)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     (4,166)
<DISCONTINUED>                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
<CHANGES>                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                            (4,166)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                0
        

</TABLE>
Pursuant to5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , th e court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 40541 C onfer enc e Cal endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f- A pp el l ee v. AA RO N I L L I NOI S A RMS T RO NG D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e E aster n D i st ri ctof T exas U SDC N o . 1 : 0 7 - CR- 5 8 - ALL B e fo r e H IG G IN B O T H A M , D E N N IS , a n d P R A D O , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R I A M: * T h e F e d e r a l P u b lic D e fe n d e ra p p o i n t e d to re p r e s e n t A a r o n Illin o is A rm st rongha s m oved f or l eave to w i t h draw an d h as f i l ed a bri ef i n accor da n ce w i t h A n d e r s v . Ca lif o rn ia , 3 86 U . S. 7 38 ( 19 67 ) . Arm s t r o ngha s no tf i l e d a r e s po ns e . O uri nde pe nde ntre vi e w of t he re c o r d a nd c o uns e l ’ s b r i e f di s c l o s e s no n on frivo l ou s is s u e for ap p ea l . A ccord i n gly, cou n sel’ s m oti on f or leav e to w i t hdr aw i s G RA N TE D , c o uns e li s e xc us e d f r o m f ur t he rr e s po ns ibi l i t i e s he r e i n, a n d th e A P P E A L IS D IS M IS S E D . S ee5 T H C IR . R. 42. 2. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Februar y 18, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Ricardo Bernardes, certify that:

1. I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of California Steel Industries, Inc. (the Registrant);

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 annual
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 officer 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 year 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 officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,
to the Registrants auditors and the audit committee of Registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls 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 controls over financial reporting.

Date: March 27, 2006



By:

/s/ Ricardo BernardesRicardo Bernardes, Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer
# C_2021391EN.01000202.xml

| 27.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 391/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 391/2

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Pordenone (Italy) lodged on 14 January 2021 — PH v Regione Autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia

(Case C-24/21)

(2021/C 391/03)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale ordinario di Pordenone

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: PH

Defendant: Regione Autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the ban imposed by Article 2.1 of Legge Regionale Friuli Venezia Giulia n. 5/2011, which introduces coexistence measures that amount to a ban on cultivating maize variety MON 810 in the territory of the region of Friuli Venezia Giulia (Italy), consistent with or contrary to the overall scheme of Directive 2001/18, (1) particularly in the light of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (2) and Recommendation 2[0]10/C 200/01 (3)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the ban imposed by Article 2.1 of Legge Regionale Friuli Venezia Giulia n. 5/2011, which introduces coexistence measures that amount to a ban on cultivating maize variety MON 810 in the territory of the region of Friuli Venezia Giulia (Italy), consistent with or contrary to the overall scheme of Directive 2001/18, (1) particularly in the light of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (2) and Recommendation 2[0]10/C 200/01 (3)?

| 2. | Does that ban also constitute a measure having equivalent effect and is it thus contrary to Articles 34, 35 and 36 TFEU? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does that ban also constitute a measure having equivalent effect and is it thus contrary to Articles 34, 35 and 36 TFEU?

---

(1)  Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC — Commission Declaration (OJ 2001 L 106, p. 1).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2003 L 268, p. 1).

(3)  Commission Recommendation of 13 July 2010 on guidelines for the development of national co-existence measures to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in conventional and organic crops (OJ 2010 C 200, p. 1).

---
H. Res. 509

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

August 9, 1994.

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it

shall be in order to consider in the House the joint resolution

(H. J. Res. 373) disapproving the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (most-favored-nation treatment) to the

products of the People’s Republic of China, and for other

purposes. All points of order against the joint resolution and

against its consideration are waived. The joint resolution

shall be debatable for eighty minutes equally divided and controlled by Representative Solomon of New York and Representative Gibbons of Florida or their designees. Pursuant

to sections 152 and 153 of the Trade Act of 1974, the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final passage without intervening motion. The provisions of sections 152 and 153 of the Trade Act of 1974

shall not apply to any other joint resolution disapproving the

extension of most-favored-nation treatment to the People’s

Republic of China for the remainder of the One Hundred

Third Congress.
2

SEC. 2. After disposition of the joint resolution (H. J.

Res. 373), the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule

XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of

the bill (H.R. 4590) to provide conditions for renewing nondiscriminatory (most-favored-nation) treatment for the People’s Republic of China. The first reading of the bill shall be

dispensed with. All points of order against the bill and

against its consideration are waived. General debate shall be

confined to the bill and the amendments made in order by

this resolution and shall not exceed one hour equally divided

and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member

of the Committee on Ways and Means. After general debate

the bill shall be considered for amendment under the fiveminute rule and shall be considered as read. No amendment

shall be in order except those printed in the report of the

Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each

amendment may be offered only by a Member designated in

the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for

the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled

by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject

to amendment. All points of order against the amendments

printed in the report are waived. If more than one of the

amendments printed in the report is adopted, only the last

to be adopted shall be considered as finally adopted and re-
3

ported to the House. At the conclusion of consideration of the

bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the

bill to the House with such amendment as may have been finally adopted. The previous question shall be considered as

ordered on the bill and any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Attest:

Clerk.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 219 Agreed to House (ATH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                               H. RES. 219

    Resolution designating majority membership on certain standing 
                        committees of the House.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 21, 1993

Mr. Hoyer submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 
                               agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    Resolution designating majority membership on certain standing 
                        committees of the House.

    Resolved, That the following named Members be, and they are hereby, 
elected to the following standing committees of the House of 
Representatives:
    Committee on Government Operations: Gene Green, Texas, and Bart 
Stupak, Michigan.
    Committee on Armed Services: Sam Farr, California.

                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                              JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                     14,839,386
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 938,408
<ALLOWANCES>                                  224,901
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           18,290,861
<PP&E>                                      1,457,212
<DEPRECIATION>                                636,091
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             28,491,810
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      23,263,671
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          65,704
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                       99,691
<OTHER-SE>                                  3,740,325
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               28,491,810
<SALES>                                    17,777,419
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           17,777,419
<CGS>                                      12,851,939
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              15,682,079
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            (171,662)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             35,776
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             2,231,226
<INCOME-TAX>                                  762,571
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         1,468,655
<DISCONTINUED>                            (1,798,894)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                (330,239)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.02)



</TABLE>
Exhibit 21.1  NETWORK EQUIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.  Wholly Owned Subsidiaries of Registrant As of May 18, 2009   N.E.T. APLA, Inc. .  (Incorporated Under the Laws of State of Delaware)  N.E.T. Cone Sul do Brasil Ltda.    (Incorporated Under the Laws of Brazil)  N.E.T. de Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V. ...   (Incorporated Under the Laws of Mexico)  N.E.T. Southeast Asia Pte Ltd. .. (Incorporated Under the Laws of Singapore)  N.E.T. China, Inc. . (Incorporated Under the Laws of State of Delaware)  N.E.T. Europe Ltd . (Incorporated Under the Laws of England)  N.E.T. Europe S.A.S. (Incorporated Under the Laws of France)  N.E.T. Federal, Inc. ... (Incorporated Under the Laws of State of Delaware)  N.E.T. Japan, Inc. .. (Incorporated Under the Laws of State of Delaware)  Netdotcom Broadband Technologies, Inc.   (Incorporated Under the Laws of Canada)  Network Equipment Technologies Australia Pty Limited  (Incorporated under the Laws of Australia)  Quintum Technologies, LLC .  (Incorporated Under the Laws of State of Delaware)  Quintum International Holdings (BVI) Limited (Incorporated Under the Laws of the British Virgin Islands)  Quintum Telecommunication Technology (Shanghai) Limited . (Incorporated Under the Laws of Shanghai)  Quintum Technologies (Hong Kong) Limited .. (Incorporated Under the Laws of Hong Kong)  Quintum Technologies Asia Limited .... (Incorporated Under the Laws of the British Virgin Islands)  Quintum Technologies (Asia) Limited .. (Incorporated Under the Laws of Hong Kong)  Quintum International Trading Company Ltd.  (Incorporated Under the Laws of Shanghai)
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Solely in connection with the filing of the Quarterly Report of Retractable Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period
ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the United States 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 the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

November 14, 2006



/s/ Thomas J. ShawTHOMAS J. SHAWPRESIDENT, CHAIRMAN, AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER/s/ Douglas W. CowanDOUGLAS W. COWAN VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
No. 10546.

#### The National Accident Society of N. Y. City *v.*Hildebrant.

Decided December 22, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Fayette county.

*Mr. Frank A. Chaffin,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. John Logan,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Price, C. J., Crew and Summers, JJ., concur.
P.1 

RCRA Box 321 

Prepped by Ryan Dugan 

Document Number: 

201) OGRC-S0004 

Docket Number: 

F-93-OGRC-FFFFF 

Printed 5/8/2007 3:36:31 PM Sheet 201 of 259 
P.2 

OSRC- ^>O0*/ 

DATE: March 19, 1993 

NOTE TO: RCRA Docket F-93-0GRC-FFFFF 

FROM: Mike Fitzpatrick 

RE: Response to Congressman Schiff 

Because the two Congressional requests concerning crude oil 

reclamation operations were so similar, the EPA response letter 

to Congressman Steven Schiff's September 28, 1990, inquiry was 

identical to the attached response sent to Senator Lloyd Bentsen.