alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022195EN.01002301.xml

| 13.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 195/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 195/23

---

Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures

(2022/C 195/06)

| 1. | As provided for in Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (1), the Commission gives notice that, unless a review is initiated in accordance with the following procedure, the anti-dumping measures mentioned below will expire on the date mentioned in the table below. |
| --- | --- |

1.

2.   Procedure

Union producers may submit a written request for a review. This request must contain sufficient evidence that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. Should the Commission decide to review the measures concerned, importers, exporters, representatives of the exporting country and Union producers will then be provided with the opportunity to amplify, rebut or comment on the matters set out in the review request.

3.   Time limit

Union producers may submit a written request for a review on the above basis, to reach the European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade (Unit G-1), CHAR 4/39, 1049 Brussels, Belgium (2) at any time from the date of the publication of the present notice but no later than three months before the date mentioned in the table below.

| 4. | This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036.









  Product | Country(ies) of origin or exportation | Measures | Reference | Date of expiry (3) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Certain cast iron articles | The People’s Republic of China | Anti-dumping duty | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/140 of 29 January 2018 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain cast iron articles originating in the People’s Republic of China and terminating the investigation on imports of certain cast iron articles originating in India
  (OJ L 25, 30.1.2018, p. 6) | 31.1.2023 |

4.

Product

Country(ies) of origin or exportation

Measures

Reference

Date of expiry (3)

Certain cast iron articles

The People’s Republic of China

Anti-dumping duty

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/140 of 29 January 2018 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain cast iron articles originating in the People’s Republic of China and terminating the investigation on imports of certain cast iron articles originating in India

(OJ L 25, 30.1.2018, p. 6)

31.1.2023

---

(1)  OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 21.

(2)  TRADE-Defence-Complaints@ec.europa.eu

(3)  The measure expires at midnight (00:00) of the day mentioned in this column

---
#### ELLIOTT v. STATE.

No. 14770.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 20, 1932.

A. B. Crane, of Raymondville, for appellant.

Bloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

LATTIMORE, J.

Conviction for misdemeanor theft; punishment, thirty days in the county jail and a fine of $25.

The charging part of the information, which follows the affidavit, is as follows: “Doc Elliott having possession of forty-five bushels of corn, then and there being the property of Manuel Oribe and Luis Oribe by virtue of being in the possession of the said Doc Elliott with the consent of Manuel Oribe, the said Doc Elliott did then and there unlawfully, and without the consent of Manuel Oribe or Luis Oribe, fraudulently convert the said forty-five bushels of corn, valued at Forty-five ($45.00) Dollars, to his, the said Doc Elliott’s use and benefit and with intent to deprive the said Manuel Oribe and Luis Oribe, the owners thereof, of the value of the same.”

It is manifest that this does not charge appellant with theft by bailee; that appearing to be the offense for which he is convicted. The information does not charge that Elliott had possession of the property by virtue of a contract of hiring or borrowing or other bailment, made with any person. The above allegation is necessary in charging this offense. No attack was made upon the affidavit which appears to be subscribed by “Manuel Uribe.” The affidavit recites in its beginning- that “I, Manuel Uribe.” The jurat of the county attorney recites that the affidavit was sworn to and subscribed by Manuel “Oribe.”

It is also apparent that the facts in evidence — even if the allegation of- the offense of theft by bailee had been sufficient — would not make out a case against appellant for such offense. The alleged owner, Oribe, testified that, when he left the farm of Mr. McKenzie, he obtained permission from McKenzie to leave in a barn on said place certain corn. Oribe was succeeded in the tenancy of said place of McKenzie by this appellant, who, according to the testimony of a Mexican named Ledesma, an employee of appellant, fed to his stock the corn of Oribe. It is plain that, if the corn was left in the possession of McKenzie, there could in no event be a conviction for conversion by bailee upon facts showing that there was no contract of hiring, .borrowing, or other bailment made by Oribe with this appellant.

Attention is also called to the fact that the affidavit and information allege the property to belong to two named persons; the want of consent of both being alleged. There is no proof in the record at all of the .want of consent of one of said named owners. It is suggested that, if it be desired to try appellant, he be tried for theft, and that the affidavit, information, or indictment, as the case might be, contain counts alleging the ownership to be in McKenzie in one count and in Manuel Oribe in the other.

Believing the information and affidavit in •the instant case to be fatally defective, the judgment will be reversed, and the prosecution ordered dismissed.
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.,
ss.1350 AS ADOPTED


PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the quarterly
report on Form 10-Q of Sunrise Holdings Limited (the "Company") for the quarter
ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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 Sunrise Holdings
Limited.







Date:
      February 6, 2009
            
            
            /s/
      Shaojun SunShaojun Sun, Chief Financial
Officer
<PAGE>
FIRST COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL CORPORATION

Exhibit 21.1 - SUBSIDIARIES OF FIRST COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL
               CORPORATION
                                                                             
                                                           Percent Ownership
                                                             By Registrant  

        First Commonwealth Bank                                   100%
        22 North Sixth Street
        Indiana, PA  15701

        Reliable Financial Corporation                            100%
        428 Station Street
        Bridgeville, PA  15017

        Unitas Mortgage Corporation                               100%
        17 East High Street
        Carlisle, PA  17013

        Unitas Financial Corporation                              100%
        PO Box 777
        Chambersburg, PA  17201

        Commonwealth Systems Corporation                          100%
        22 North Sixth Street
        Indiana, PA  15701
        Incorporated under the laws of Pennsylvania

        First Commonwealth Trust Company                          100%
        614 Philadelphia Street
        Indiana, PA  15701
        Incorporated under the laws of Pennsylvania

        BSI Financial Services Inc.                               100%
        101 North Second Street
        Titusville, PA  16354

        Commonwealth Trust Credit Life Insurance Company           50%
        100 West Clarendon, Suite 800
        Phoenix, AZ  85013
#### MANLEY v. STATE.

No. 15067.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 17, 1932.

Earl M. Greer, of Wills Point, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

CALHOUN, J.

The offense, possessing intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for one year.

The record is before us without a statement- of facts or bills of exception. No defect either in the indictment or procedure has been pointed out or has been perceived. No question is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.
#### BACHUS et al. v. FOSTER et al.

No. 1617.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Eastland.

Feb. 3, 1939.

F. E. Mitchell and L. B. Lewis, -both of Baird, and Scarborough & Ely, of Abilene, for appellants.

Turner, Seaberry & Springer, of East-land, for appellees.

GRISSOM, Justice.

On January 15, 1937, we reversed the judgment of the trial court sustaining the plea of privilege of the defendant Foster, and rendered judgment overruling said defendant’s plea of privilege.

Pending motion for rehearing, upon ap-pellees’ motion, the following questions were certified to the Supreme Court:

> “(1) Is this suit against Foster an action upon a contract or in tort?

> “(2) Is it incumbent upon a plaintiff in a suit of this kind - in order for him to establish that the principal is a necessary party to the suit under Art. 6251, and subd. 29a of Art. 1995 [Vernon’s Ann. Civ.St. art. 1995, subd. 29a], to allege and prove that a judgment has not previously been rendered against the principal and likewise negative all other exceptions referred to in article 6251?

> “(3) Under the facts of this case, did we err in holding that the sheriff was a necessary party to a suit against the surety on his official bond?

> “(4) Since the official bond of Foster was filed in Eastland County, did we err in holding that the district court of Taylor County had venue of this suit in view of the portion of Art. 4975 which provides ‘if any suit shall be instituted upon any bond or obligation of any surety company, the proper court of the county wherein said bond is filed shall have jurisdiction of said cause ?’ ”

On January 4, 1939, said questions were answered by the Supreme Court. See Mrs. Ethel Bachus et al. v. Virge Foster et al., 122 S.W.2d 1058.

The Supreme Court held that the venue of a suit upon a surety bond is by virtue of the provisions of Chapter 16, Title 78 of the Revised Statutes of 1925, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St. art. 4969 et seq., and subd. 30 of Art. 1995, fixed exclusively in the county where the bond sued on is filed.

In compliance with the opinion of the Supreme Court, the motion for rehearing is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Yankee Holding Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended July 3, 2010, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Bruce L. Hartman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 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, as amended; and

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



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Gregory W. Hunt    
|Gregory W. Hunt        
|Chief Financial Officer
|August 12, 2010        



41
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

﻿

I, Maryjo Cohen, certify that:

﻿

1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of National Presto Industries, Inc.;

﻿

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;

﻿

﻿

| ﻿             |   |                    |   |
|----------------------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
| Date: March 31, 2020 | /S/    | Maryjo Cohen            |   |
|                 |   | Maryjo Cohen            |   |
|                 |   | Chief Executive Officer |   |

﻿

﻿

----
laz-ex1014_1108.htm



Exhibit 10.14

EXECUTION COPY

October 30, 2017

Mr. Scott D. Hoffman

Lazard Frères & Co. LLC

30 Rockefeller Plaza

New York, NY 10020

Re: Amendment to Retention Agreement to Reflect Chief Administrative Officer Position

Dear Mr. Hoffman: 

In connection with your appointment as Chief Administrative Officer of Lazard Ltd (“Lazard”) and Lazard Group LLC (“Lazard Group”), effective July 26, 2017, Lazard, Lazard Group and you desire to amend the Amended and Restated Agreement Relating to Retention and Noncompetition and Other Covenants, dated as of March 9, 2016, by and among Lazard, Lazard Group and you (the “Retention Agreement”) to reflect such new position.  Accordingly, Lazard, Lazard Group and you hereby agree that, effective as of the date hereof, clause (i) of Section 3(b) of the Retention Agreement shall be amended to read as follows:  “(i) serve as the General Counsel of Lazard and Lazard Group and as the Chief Administrative Officer of Lazard and Lazard Group, with such authority, duties and responsibilities as are consistent with the authority, duties and responsibilities exercised by the Executive on October 30, 2017,”.

Except as specifically set forth herein, this letter amendment shall not, by implication or otherwise, alter, amend or modify in any way any terms of the Retention Agreement, all of which shall continue in full force and effect.

[Remainder of the page intentionally left blank]

 





 

 


		
	
Very truly yours,

	
 

	
LAZARD LTD,

	
 

	
by
	
/s/ Kenneth M. Jacobs

	
Name:
	
Kenneth M. Jacobs

	
Title:
	
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

	
 
	
 

	
LAZARD GROUP LLC,

	
 
	
 

	
by
	
/s/ Kenneth M. Jacobs

	
Name:
	
Kenneth M. Jacobs

	
Title:
	
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer




 

 

 

 


		
	
AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED:

	
 

	
 
	
/s/ Scott D. Hoffman

	
 
	
Scott D. Hoffman

	
 
	
 

	
 
	
Date:  October 30, 2017
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

** Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 521 (1972).

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-10699

Conference Calendar

 

ASADI SHAMSIDEEN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

THE STATE OF TEXAS ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:97-CV-1092-X

- - - - - - - - - -

June 16, 1998

Before DAVIS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Asadi Shamsideen appeals the district court’s dismissal for

failure to state a claim of his pro se, in forma pauperis civil

rights lawsuit, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Even giving his

appellate brief the liberal construction afforded pro se

pleadings,** Shamsideen does not address the issues of absolute

or Eleventh-Amendment immunity in his appellate brief. See id.,

passim. He has therefore waived any argument challenging the
No. 97-10699

-2-

district court’s conclusion that the appellees are immune from

suit. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.

1993); Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d

744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987)(issues not asserted on appeal are

abandoned). Because Shamsideen fails to challenge the district

court’s dismissal of his illegal-detention claim, that claim is

likewise abandoned. Id. Further, because his lawsuit was

dismissed for failure to state a claim prior to service on the

appellants, Shamsideen’s argument that he is entitled to a

default judgment is meritless. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

Shamsideen’s appeal is without arguable merit and is thus

frivolous. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). 

Because it is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2. 

We caution Shamsideen that any additional frivolous appeals

filed by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of

sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Shamsideen is further cautioned

to review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise

arguments that are frivolous. 

Shamsideen’s motions for default judgment, damages, and the

appointment of counsel are DENIED.

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED; MOTIONS DENIED.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, JEFFREY D. SERKES, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of THE POTOMAC EDISON COMPANY.

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 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(s) 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 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 quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) 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(s) 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 the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

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



|                        |  |  |  |                                              
|----------------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------------
|                        |  |  |  | /s/    JEFFREY D.
SERKES                     
|Date: February 28, 2006 |  |  |  | Jeffrey D. Serkes Principal Financial Officer
EXHIBIT
      32.1


CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C., ss.1350 AS ADOPTED


PURSUANT
      TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Sunrise Mining
      Corporation (the "Company") for the quarter ended December 31, 2007, as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
      the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. ss.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 Sunrise Mining
      Corporation.





Date: January
                22, 2008
            
            
            /s/
                Xuguang SunXuguang
                  Sun, Chief Executive Officer and
                  President
# Official Journal L 193/2009

| | ISSN 1725-2555
  doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2009.193.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 193 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5224 July 2009 |

ISSN 1725-2555

doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2009.193.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 193

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5224 July 2009

---

| Contents | | I   Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is obligatory | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EC) No 606/2009 of 10 July 2009 laying down certain detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 as regards the categories of grapevine products, oenological practices and the applicable restrictions | 1 |
| | * | Commission regulation (EC) No 607/2009 of 14 July 2009 laying down certain detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 as regards protected designations of origin and geographical indications, traditional terms, labelling and presentation of certain wine sector products | 60 |

Contents

I   Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is obligatory

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Regulation (EC) No 606/2009 of 10 July 2009 laying down certain detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 as regards the categories of grapevine products, oenological practices and the applicable restrictions

1

*

Commission regulation (EC) No 607/2009 of 14 July 2009 laying down certain detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 as regards protected designations of origin and geographical indications, traditional terms, labelling and presentation of certain wine sector products

60

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

EN

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

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
##### 



Very truly yours,/s/ Vinson & Elkins L.L.P.