alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2007269EN.01004902.xml

| 10.11.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/49

---

Action brought on 16 August 2007 — Tegebauer v Parliament

(Case T-308/07)

(2007/C 269/89)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Ingo-Jens Tegebauer (Trier, Germany) (represented by: R. Nieporte, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Declare null and void the Decision of the Committee on Petitions of 20 June 2007 on Petition No 0095/2007; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare null and void the Decision of the Committee on Petitions of 20 June 2007 on Petition No 0095/2007;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contests the Decision of the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament of 20 June 2007, by which the petition submitted by the applicant in accordance with Article 191(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament was put on the file without further action being taken. The applicant's petition relates to the partial recovery of the candidate's remuneration paid during his pre-service training for the career of senior general administrator with the municipality of Brunswick.

In support of his application, the applicant submits that the contested decision is not sufficiently well founded. In addition, he points out that the requirements for submission of a petition under Article 194 EC are met, in particular that it relates to a matter which comes within the Community's fields of activity and which affects him directly.

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 121 (Tuesday, September 11, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5769]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                   DESIGNATION OF SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following 
communication from the Speaker:

                                               Washington, DC,

                                               September 11, 2012.
       I hereby appoint the Honorable Daniel Webster to act as 
     Speaker pro tempore on this day.
                                                  John A. Boehner,
     Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                          ____________________
```
EXHIBIT 32.1
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                 18 U.S.C. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly  Report of UNITECH ENERGY CORP. (the "Company")
on Form  10-QSB  for the  period  ended  January  31,  2005,  as filed  with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, James
Durward, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350,  as adopted  pursuant  to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,
that:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all  material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


                                /s/ James Durward
                                ---------------------------
Date: April 21, 2005                James Durward
                                    Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 31.2**
I, Bert W. Hogue, Chief Financial Officer of Epoch Biosciences, Inc. (the“Company”), certify that:
1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company; 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary tomake the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered bythis report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:  a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, includingits consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b) [Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986]  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end ofthe period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in thecase of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s boardof directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably 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 otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrols over financial reporting.        Date: March 26, 2004 By:  /s/ Bert W. Hogue    Bert W. Hogue    Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Milverton Balnavis, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.), rendered December 20, 1988, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the prosecutor committed reversible error by submitting to the jury that the crucial issue for it to consider was whether the police officers who testified for the People would jeopardize their careers by lying on the stand. The record indicates that the defendant did not object to this comment at trial on the ground now asserted on appeal. Accordingly, the claim is not preserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Medina,*53 NY2d 951). In any event, although the tactic employed by the prosecution is generally impermissible *(see, People v Bonaparte,*98 AD2d 778), under these circumstances it was a fair response to the defense summation *(see, People v Hernandez,*128 AD2d 637).

The contentions raised by the defendant in his supplemental *pro se*brief are either unpreserved for appellate review *135(CPL 470.05 [2]) or without merit. Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.
#### Charles Himes, Individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian of Veronica Himes, an Infant, Respondent, v County of Chautauqua, Appellant, and County of Erie et al., Respondents.

— Order insofar as appealed from unanimously reversed on the law without costs and County of Chautauqua’s motion denied. Memorandum: Supreme Court should have denied defendant County of Chautauqua’s motion to dismiss. Plaintiff’s complaint must be liberally construed, with every allegation taken as true, to determine whether it pleads a legally cognizable claim *(see, Guggenheimer v Ginzburg,*43 NY2d 268, 275; *Burlew v American Mut. Ins. Co.,*99 AD2d 11,15, *affd*63 NY2d 412; *Pietropaoli Trucking v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.,*100 AD2d 680). The complaint states that defendant County of Chautauqua breached its duty in negligently failing to place Veronica Himes in an appropriate non-secure detention facility prior to the order of disposition *(see,*Family Ct Act § 739; County Law § 218-a). The complaint thus states a cognizable cause of action *(see, Blanca C. v County of Nassau,*65 NY2d 712; *Sinkler v County of Monroe,*127 AD2d 1006; *Harris v State of New York,*117 AD2d 298, 302-303; *657
      *Bartels v County of Westchester,*76 AD2d 517). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, Ricotta, J.— Dismiss Complaint.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Green, Pine and Lowery, JJ.
Document Headings

                    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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

      ( print page 90218)    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         December 29, 2023.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 21, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 152 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2024-131, CP2024-137.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2023-28737 Filed 12-28-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         964
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  6,667
<ALLOWANCES>                                   376
<INVENTORY>                                    8,285
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               16,008
<PP&E>                                         2,136
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 31,970
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          8,773
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       2
<OTHER-SE>                                     21,420
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   31,970
<SALES>                                        49,779
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               49,779
<CGS>                                          26,685
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  18,001
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               505
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             429
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                4,159
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1,494
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   2,487
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.46


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections
(a) and (b) of Section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of IPC Holdings, Ltd. (the Company), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                         |  |  |  |                   |  |                        
|------------------------ |  |  |  | ----------------- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: February 27, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/    JOHN
WEALE
|                         |  |  |  | Name:             |  | John R. Weale          
|                         |  |  |  | Title:            |  | Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL,

Petitioner 

v.

ALICIA ANN BLANKENSHIP,

 Respondent 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 2628 Disciplinary Docket No. 3

No. C2-18-1069

Attorney Registration No. 309898

(Lancaster County)

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 3

rd day of July, 2019, upon consideration of the Certificate of 

Admission of Disability by Alicia Ann Blankenship, she is immediately transferred to 

inactive status for an indefinite period and until further Order of the Court. See Pa.R.D.E. 

301(e). She shall comply with all the provisions of Pa.R.D.E. 217.

All pending disciplinary proceedings shall be held in abeyance, except for the 

perpetuation of testimony and the preservation of documentary evidence.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 114 (Monday, July 30, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5329]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                              THE JOURNAL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has examined the Journal of the 
last day's proceedings and announces to the House his approval thereof.
  Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.

                          ____________________
```
Exhibit 13.2



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



I, Ricardo Ramos, Chief Financial Officer of
Sociedad Química y Minera de Chile S.A. (“SQM”), a corporation incorporated under the laws of the Republic of
Chile, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to my knowledge:



| | 1. | The Annual Report of SQM on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission, 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 Annual Report on Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of SQM.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|/s/ Ricardo Ramos R. | 
|-------------------- | 

Name: Ricardo Ramos R.

Title: Chief Financial Officer and Business
Development Senior Vice President

Date: May 18, 2015
##### 



Exhibit 12.1
 IPC HOLDINGS, LTD. AND SUBSIDIARIES
RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO COMBINED FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED SHARE DIVIDENDS
  Year ended December 31,2006
    
    2005
    
    2004
    
    2003
    
    2002($ in thousands)Net income (loss)
    
    $
    394,585
    
    
    $
    (623,399
    )
    
    $
    138,613
    
    
    $
    260,629
    
    
    $
    157,906Preferred share dividends
    
    
    17,176
    
    
    
    2,644
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Fixed charges
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Ratio of earnings to
combined fixed charges
and preferred share
dividends
    
    
    23.0 : 1
    
    
    
    (1
    )
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
 
 (1)
    
    Earnings for the year ended December 31, 2005 were insufficient to cover combined fixed
charges and preferred share dividends by $626.0 million.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM TWELVE
MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          12,288
<SECURITIES>                                    70,487
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,634
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,100
<INVENTORY>                                     18,851
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               141,536
<PP&E>                                          21,146
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,013
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 154,471
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           23,668
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       116,347
<OTHER-SE>                                      14,456
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   154,471
<SALES>                                        165,463
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               165,463
<CGS>                                           91,737
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  139,125
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  51
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 28,495
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,258
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             18,237
<DISCONTINUED>                                  (1,840)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                       06,397
<NET-INCOME>                                    16,397
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.36
        

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-50949 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MARIANO GARCIA-TORRES, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. DR-01-CR-102-1-FB

-------------------- June 19, 2002 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Mariano Garcia-Torres appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Garcia-Torres complains that his sentence was improperly enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) based on his prior deportation following an aggravated felony conviction. Garcia-Torres argues that the sentencing provision violates the Due Process Clause because it permitted the sentencing judge to find, under a preponderance of the evidence standard, a fact which increased the statutoryNo. 01-50949 -2- maximum sentence to which he otherwise would have been exposed. Garcia-Torres thus contends that his sentence is invalid and argues that it should not exceed the two-year maximum term of imprisonment prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Garcia-Torres acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres

. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied , 531 U.S. 1202 (2001). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that the judgment of the district court be affirmed and that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.