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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted
from the financial statements for the nine months ended 
December 31, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.

</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          25,191
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  734,403
<ALLOWANCES>                                    25,000
<INVENTORY>                                    478,916
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,826,227
<PP&E>                                       2,384,269
<DEPRECIATION>                                 162,442
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,692,916
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,548,393
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          252,114
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,121
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,692,916
<SALES>                                      2,452,934
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,452,934
<CGS>                                        3,657,006
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,657,006
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               188,529
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              94,746
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,780,800)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,355
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,791,155)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (3,344,755)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.57)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.57)
        

</TABLE>
#### Joseph GOMILLA et al. v. RALSTON PURINA COMPANY.

No. 53285.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 20, 1973.

In re: Joseph Gomilla, et al applying for Certiorari, or writ of review, to' the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Tangipahoa. 271 So.2d 681.

Writ denied. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal the result is correct.
# C_2022011EN.01001303.xml

| 10.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 11/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11/13

---

Appeal brought on 29 July 2021 by König Ludwig International GmbH & Co. KG against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 31 May 2021 in Case T-332/20, König Ludwig International v EUIPO

(Case C-465/21 P)

(2022/C 11/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: König Ludwig International GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: O. Spuhler, Rechtsanwalt, J. Stock, Rechtsanwältin)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 12 November 2021, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that König Ludwig International GmbH & Co. KG should bear its own costs.

---
# C_2023155EN.01005101.xml

| 2.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/51

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 March 2023 — Société des produits Nestlé v EUIPO — The a2 Milk Company (A 2)

(Case T-759/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark A 2 - Earlier international registration - Figurative mark THE a2 MILK COMPANY THE a2 MILK COMPANY - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2023/C 155/64)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Société des produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Jaeger-Lenz and J. Thomsen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Nicolás Gómez and M. Eberl, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: The a2 Milk Company Ltd (Auckland, New Zealand) (represented by: M. Hawkins, T. Dolde and C. Zimmer, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 15 October 2021 (Case R 2447/2020-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Société des produits Nestlé SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Société des produits Nestlé SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 24.1.2022.

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                 NOTICE REGARDING CONSENT OF ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

         Section 11(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the
"Securities Act"), provides that if part of a registration statement at the time
it becomes effective contains an untrue statement of a material fact, or omits a
material fact required to be stated therein or necessary to make the statements
therein not misleading, any person acquiring a security pursuant to such
registration statement (unless it is proved that at the time of such acquisition
such person knew of such untruth or omission) may assert a claim against, among
others, an accountant who has consented to be named as having certified any part
of the registration statement or having prepared any report for used in
connection with the registration statement.

         In May 2002, the Company announced that the Board of Directors, upon
recommendation of its Audit Committee, ended the engagement of Arthur Andersen
LLP as the Company's independent public accountants, and engaged KPMG LLP to
serve as the Company's independent public accountants for the fiscal year ending
March 31, 2002. For more information, see the Company's current report on Form
8-K, filed with the SEC on June 3, 2002.

         After reasonable efforts, we have been unable to obtain the consent of
Arthur Andersen, our former independent public accountants, as to the
incorporation by reference of their report for our fiscal year ended March 31,
2001 into our previously filed registration statements (Nos. 33-46699, 33-89878,
333-32028 and 333-23391) under the Securities Act, and we have not filed that
consent with this Annual Report on Form 10-K in reliance on Rule 437a of the
Securities Act of 1933. Because we have not been able to obtain Arthur
Andersen's consent, you will not be able to recover against Arthur Andersen
under Section 11 of the Securities Act for any untrue statements of a material
fact contained in our financial statements audited by Arthur Andersen or any
omissions to state a material fact required to be stated therein.
** **

**Exhibit 23.1**

** **

** **

**CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We hereby consent to the incorporationby reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 33-44012, 33-44599,33-64032, 333-2676, 333-70057 and 333-57130) pertaining to the Stock OptionPlan and Non-employee Director Stock Option Plan of our report dated March 4,2005 (except for the matters discussed in Notes 1 and 5, as to which the dateis March 30, 2005), with respect to the consolidated financial statements andschedule of Fischer Imaging Corporation included in this Annual Report on Form10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004.

 
|   | /s/ Ehrhardt Keefe Steiner &  Hottman PC |
|--------|----------------------------------------------|

 

 

Denver, Colorado

March31, 2005

 

----
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1070

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 1, 1994

Referred to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

AN ACT

To provide that certain politically appointed Federal officers

may not receive cash awards for a certain period during

a Presidential election year, to prohibit cash awards to

Executive Schedule officers, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•S 1070 RFH

1 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON CASH AWARDS TO CERTAIN

2 FEDERAL OFFICERS.

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 45 of title 5, United

4 States Code, is amended by inserting after section 4507

5 the following new sections:

6 ‘‘§ 4508. Limitation of awards during a Presidential

7 election year

8 ‘‘(a) For purposes of this section, the term—

9 ‘‘(1) ‘Presidential election period’ means any

10 period beginning on June 1 in a calendar year in

11 which the popular election of the President occurs,

12 and ending on January 20 following the date of such

13 election; and

14 ‘‘(2) ‘senior politically appointed officer’ means

15 any officer who during a Presidential election period

16 serves—

17 ‘‘(A) in a Senior Executive Service position

18 and is not a career appointee as defined under

19 section 3132(a)(4); or

20 ‘‘(B) in a position of a confidential or pol21 icy-determining character under schedule C of

22 subpart C of part 213 of title 5 of the Code of

23 Federal Regulations.

24 ‘‘(b) No senior politically appointed officer may re25 ceive an award under the provisions of this subchapter

26 during a Presidential election period.
3

•S 1070 RFH

1 ‘‘§ 4509. Prohibition of cash award to Executive

2 Schedule officers

3 ‘‘No officer may receive a cash award under the pro4 visions of this subchapter, if such officer serves in—

5 ‘‘(1) an Executive Schedule position under sub6 chapter II of chapter 53; or

7 ‘‘(2) a position for which the compensation is

8 set in statute by reference to a section or level under

9 subchapter II of chapter 53.’’.

10 (b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—

11 The table of sections for chapter 45 of title 5, United

12 States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relat13 ing to section 4507 the following:

‘‘4508. Limitation of awards during a Presidential election year.

‘‘4509. Prohibition of cash award to Executive Schedule officers.’’.

Passed the Senate November 24 (legislative day, November 23), 1993.

Attest: WALTER J. STEWART,

Secretary.
Ryder Scott Company
Petroleum Consultants

1100 Louisiana                                              Fax (713) 651-0849
Suite 3800
Houston, TX  77002-5218                               Telephone (713) 651-9191






                      CONSENT OF PETROLEUM CONSULTING FIRM




      We consent to the  reference to our name included in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K for  the  year  ended December  31, 2001 for  Dyco Oil and Gas Program
1985-2 Limited Partnership.


                              //s// Ryder Scott Company, L.P.

                              RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.




Houston, Texas
March 8, 2002
February 10, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

XUN HUANG AND YUYING DING, Appellants

NO. 14-15-00091-CV V.

RAJESH DALAL, Appellee

________________________________

Today the Court heard appellants’ motion to dismiss the appeal from the 

judgment signed by the court below on October 29, 2014. Having considered the 

motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

appellants, Xun Huang and Yuying Ding, jointly and severally.

We further order that mandate be issued immediately.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
**Exhibit32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of LOUD Technologies Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, James T. Engenand Timothy P. O’Neil, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer,respectively, of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
| Dated:  May 15, 2006 | By:      | /s/ James T. Engen                                                                                                          |   |
|---------------------------|----------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                      |     | James T. Engen                                                                                                              |
|                      | * * | *Chairman, President and Chief  Executive  Officer*                                                                         |
| * *                  | * * | * *                                                                                                                    |
|                      |     | /s/ Timothy P. O’Neil                                                                                                  |   |
|                      |     | Timothy P. O’Neil                                                                                                      |
|                      | * * | *Chief Financial Officer, Senior  Vice**President, Secretary and**Treasurer (Principal Financial**and**Accounting Officer)* |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 hasbeen provided to LOUD Technologies Inc. and will be retained by the Company andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
#### Eugene Bourgeois, Appellant, *v.*Louis Bustanoby, Impleaded, Etc., Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

December, 1912.)

Principal and agent — contracts made by agent — representation of agent as principal.

Where an agent, on making a purchase of goods, represents himself as a principal, he cannot in an action to recover the purchase price show that he was in fact only an agent.

Appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment of the Oity Court of the city of Hew York rendered in favor of the defendant Louis Bustanoby, after a trial before the court sitting without a jury.

William H. Blymyer, for appellant.

Gillespie & O’Connor (Harold H. O’Connor and Hicholas A. Donnelly, of counsel), for respondent.

Lehman, J.

The complaint herein alleges that the defendants entered into an agreement for the purchase of champagne, and have failed to pay the amount due. The defendant Louis Bustanoby answered by a general denial. At the trial it appeared that the champagne was ordered by letter signed “ Bustanoby Brothers, per Louis Bustanoby,” and is written upon letter paper bearing at its head the names Louis Bustanoby, Andre Bustanoby, Jacques Bustanoby, and below these names the -words “ Bustanoby *405Brothers.” The defendant then introduced in evidence a certificate of incorporation of a corporation named “ Bustanoby Brothers ” and the minutes of the corporation showing that it was actually doing business. The trial justice thereupon gave judgment for the defendant, holding that the sale was made to the corporation, even though the plaintiff did not know- of its existence. In this conclusion I think that the trial justice erred. The mere fact that a corporation existed under the name of Bustanoby Brothers does not prevent stockholders from making contracts individually, and, if they do make such contracts, they are personally liable; nor does it preclude the stockholders from forming a firm, and doing business under a firm name, even though the corporation may have also adopted the same name. In this case, the order was given under circumstances equivalent to a direct representation that the firm of Bustanoby Brothers, composed of Louis, Andre and Jacques Bustanoby, was giving the order, and the plaintiff had a right to make the contract with them and to hold them liable. He sold the goods to this firm, and the members of that firm, joining in the representations that they constituted a firm, cannot be permitted to show that they were acting only as agents of a corporation. It seems to me that the case is simply one of undisclosed principal where the agent has chosen to represent himself as a principal, and cannot thereafter show that he was in fact an agent. The defendants, having entered into a contract as a firm, cannot be permitted to show that, in fact, they were representing a corporation of similar name.

The judgment must, therefore, be reversed, with costs, and, since upon a new trial the defendants cannot change the result, judgment should be entered for the plaintiff in the sum demanded in the complaint, with interest and costs.

Page and Hotchkiss, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, with costs.
#### SYSTEMS ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, INCORPORATED, Appellant, v. Keith L. NUHN, Appellee.

No. 73-725.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 14, 1973.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; Humes T. Lasher, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
259 La. 873

#### Marshall LAIRD et ux. v. TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 51727.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 18, 1971.

In re: Marshall Laird and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Allen. 251 So.2d 73.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or coll ateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### OCT 21 1998 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

ALBERT RAYMOND COPP, JR. and MARJORIE LOUISE HAWORTH, Plaintiff-Appellants,

v. BOYD M. MCMASTER; SHARON L. KINNISON; LORI L. LEWIS; CAROL COLLINS; MONICA A. SHARUM; KURT KELLY; MARGARET E. KELLEY; FOURTHJUDICIAL DISTRICT JUDGESHERIDAN COUNTY, a/k/a John D. Brackley, Defendants-Appellees. No. 98-8020 (D.C. No. 97-CV-1060) (Wyoming)



### ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before SEYMOUR , Chief Judge, EBEL and BRISCOE , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of-2-

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The c ause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Plaintiffs Albert Raymond Copp, Jr. and Marjorie Lo uise Haworth appeal the district court’s dismissal of their action agai nst the several defendants for failure to state a claim. We affirm. Although it is difficult to tell from the complaint , this action apparently arose out a state court action brought against plai ntiffs by Lori L. Lewis, Ms. Haworth’s daughter and a defendant in the present a ction, to collect a debt she claimed plaintiffs owed her. In addition to Ms. Le wis, plaintiffs sued the state court judge and two attorneys, one who represented them and another who was requested to do so. They also sued members of the Commission for Judicial Conduct and Ethics and the Assistant Bar Counsel fo r the Wyoming State Bar Board of Professional Responsibility because they w ere unhappy with the results of their complaints against the judge and one of th e lawyers. Without specifying any facts to support their claims, plaintiffs asserted that the defendants had violated their “God given and Constitutional rights ” under the 5th, 6th and 7th Amendments. SeeComplaint, rec., doc. 1. In its order granting defendants’ motions to dismis s, the district court carefully parsed plaintiffs’ claims against the var ious defendants. We have reviewed the record and we are not persuaded the di strict court erred. We-3-

therefore AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of all plaintiffs’ c laims substantially for the reasons given by the court inits Order on Motions to Dismiss dated February 27, 1998. ENTERED FOR THE COURT Stephanie K. Seymour Chief Judge
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/A for the period
ended March 31, 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.

May 16, 2006



/s/ Thomas J. ShawTHOMAS J. SHAWPRESIDENT, CHAIRMAN, ANDCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER/s/ Douglas W. CowanDOUGLAS W. COWAN VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
Exhibit 32.2
 
 CERTIFICATION
 PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 (18 U.S.C. 1350)
 
 Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of (18 U.S.C. 1350), the undersigned officer of Earth Search Sciences, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to the best of such officer's knowledge and belief, that:
 
 (1) The Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended March 31, 2010 (the "Form 10-KSB/A") of the Company 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 Form 10-KSB/A fairly presents, in all materials respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 Date: August 16, 2010/s/Tami Story.Tami Story, Secretary Treasurer
 
 This certification shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Securities Exchange Act.