alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Official Journal C 80/2007

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 80 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5013 April 2007 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 80

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5013 April 2007

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| | Commission |
| 2007/C 080/01 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

2007/C 080/01

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1)

1

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| | Commission |
| 2007/C 080/02 | Euro exchange rates | 6 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

2007/C 080/02

Euro exchange rates

6

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | Commission |
| 2007/C 080/03 | Call for proposals under the work programmes of the 7th EC Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities | 7 |

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

Commission

2007/C 080/03

Call for proposals under the work programmes of the 7th EC Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities

7

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

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

**AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of GTSolar International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for thequarter ended September 26, 2009, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Thomas M. Zarrella, Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.                                       The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                                       The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Date:  November 10, 2009         |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|
|                                  |   |
|                                  |   |
| /s/  THOMAS GUTIERREZ                 |   |
|                                  |   |
| Thomas Gutierrez                      |   |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |   |
| (Principal Executive Officer)         |   |

 

1

----
#### GENERAL AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE CO., Appellant, v. Clyde R. BURLESON et Ux., Appellees.

No. 4380.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Amarillo.

June 24, 1935.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 9, 1935.

Bean, Duggan & Bean, of Lubbock, for appellant.

Vickers, Campbell & Evans, of Lubbock, for appellees.

HALL, Chief Justice.

The appellees, Burleson and wife, Mary A. Burleson, borrowed $3,000 from the Temple Trust Company on May 1, 1923, and executed one note for $3,000 due February 1, 1934. To secure the payment of this note they executed and delivered a mortgage covering the southeast quarter of section 26, block P, in Lubbock county. The principal debt bears interest at 8 per cent. There is no allegation in the pleading that more than 8 per cent, interest per annum was ever paid by appellees. The interest due on the principal debt to the extent of 6 per cent, per annum was evidenced by coupons attached to the principal note. The balance of interest at the rate of 2 per cent, per annum for the entire term of the loan was evidenced by a note for $645 payable in eleven installments, the first being for $45 due February 1, 1924, and the remaining installments for $60 each due on the 1st day of February of each year beginning 1925 to 1934, inclusive.' A second mortgage was executed covering the same property to secure the payment of this interest note.

Burleson and wife instituted this suit against the General American Life Insurance Company, Temple Trust Company and its receiver, H. C. Glenn, alleging usury, praying for credit upon the principal note for the amount of all interest paid, alleged to be $2,340. They further allege they paid $480 interest within the two years next preceding the institution of the suit, and sought to recover double interest as penalty. They also prayed for cancellation of the balance of the interest note, which was originally $645.

The General American Life Insurance Company alone answered, alleging that the two notes and the mortgages constituted one contract, and that the contract was not usurious because of the stipulations in the mortgage which we have set out in substance in Temple Trust Co. et al. v. Lou Stubbs et al. (Tex. Civ. App.) 85 S.W.(2d) 817.

Suffice it to say that there is no controversy as to the material facts, and the assignments urged present the same issues of law as have been presented and considered in the following cases: Myrtle P. Cowan v. R. I. Wilson et ux. (Tex. Civ. App.) 85 S.W.(2d) 823; Temple Trust Co. et al. v. Lou Stubbs et al. (Tex. Civ. App.) 85 S.W.(2d) 817; Temple Trust Co. et al. v. W. L. Logan et ux. (Tex. Civ. App.) 85 S.W.(2d) 816; and Temple Trust Co. et al. v. O. Lykes et ux. (Tex. Civ. App.) 85 S.W.(2d) 818, this day decided by this court.

For the reasons stated in the foregoing cases, the judgment of the court in the instant case is erroneous.

The judgment is therefore reversed, and the cause remanded.
# •



# • RCC Study Number849138

DEAIACID ANHYDRIDE REACTION PRODUCT: 5-Day Range-Finding Oral Toxicity (Gavage) Study in the Wistar Rat Report


## Authors: W.H. Braun Sponsor: Rockwool International A/S**Hovedgad~n** 

## 584 DK- 2640 Hedehusene 

## I Denmark

Page 1of 3RCC STUDY NUMBER 849138 DEA/ACIDANHYDRIDE REACTION PRODUCT


### GENERAL In this dose range-finding toxicity study, DEA/ACID ANHYDRIDE REACTION PRODUCT was administered daily by oral gavage to SPF-bred Wistar rats of both sexes at dose levels of 200, 600 or 1000 mg/kg body weight for a period of five days. A control group received a similar dosevolume (5 ml/kg bodyweight) ofthevehicle, PEG 300. The study comprised two animals per group andsex which were sacrificed afterfive days of treatment. Clinical signs, food consumption and body weights were recorded periodically during the acclimatization and treatment periods. At the end of the dosing period, all animals were killed, necropsied and examined postmortem. The results ofthe studyare summarized asfollows: Mortality All animals survived until scheduled necropsy. Clinical Signs • There were no clinical signs oftoxicological relevance at anydose level.



# • Food Consumption The mean dailyfood consumption ofthefemales treated with 200 mg/kg/day andboth sexes treated with 600 mg/kg/day and 1000 mg/kg/day remained lower than that of the respective controls. BodyWeights Although the mean body weights and body weight gain of the test item-treated males comparedfavorably with those ofthe control males, the mean bodyweights and bodyweight gain were lower in females at all dose levels. Organ Weights Elevated mean relative kidney weights were noted in the males at all dose levels and in females at 600 mg/kg/day and 1000 mg/kg/day. These findings were considered likely to be test item-related changes. Relative liver weights were very slightly elevated in both sexes treated with 1000 mg/kg/day; thesefindingswere considered likelyto be adaptive changes
. Macroscopical Findings No macroscopical findingswere seen at anydose level.

2

# •

• RCC STUDY NUMBER 849138 DEA/ACID ANHYDRIDE REACTION PRODUCT


### ASSESSMENT Based on the results of this five-day dose range-finding study (and the previous five-day study performed with 10, 50 and 250 mg/kg/day, RCC Study Number 848627), dose levels of 10, 50 or 250 mg/kg body weight/day are proposed for the subsequent 28-day study (RCC Study Number848626)with DEA/ACID ANHYDRIDE REACTION PRODUCT. Study Director W.H. Braun

3
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

 

Each of theundersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of ChannellCommercial Corporation (the “Company”), for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that tothe best of his knowledge:

 

•                  TheQuarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

•                  Theinformation contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.

 

 

Date:  November 4, 2003

 

 
|   |   /s/  William  H. Channell, Sr. |                     |   |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------|--------------------------|--------|
|   |   Name:                               | William H. Channell, Sr. |   |
|   |  Title:                                    | Chief  Executive Officer |   |
|   |                                            |                     |
|   |                                            |                     |
|   |  /s/  Thomas  Liguori                 |                     |   |
|   |  Name:                                     | Thomas Liguori           |   |
|   | Title:                                          | Chief  Financial Officer |   |
|        |                                                 |                          |        |  |  |

 

----
II 

Calendar No. 258 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 324 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 25, 2015 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

OCTOBER 8, 2015 

Reported by Mr. JOHNSON, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 11662 Gravois Road in St. Louis, Missouri, 

as the ‘‘Lt. Daniel P. Riordan Post Office’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LT. DANIEL P. RIORDAN POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 11662 Gravois Road in St. 

6 Louis, Missouri, shall be known and designated as the 

7 ‘‘Lt. Daniel P. Riordan Post Office’’. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 324 RS

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Lt. Daniel P. Riordan 

5 Post Office’’. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 258 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 324 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostPost Office’’. Louis, Missouri, as the ‘‘Lt. Daniel P. Riordan al Service located at 11662 Gravois Road in St. 

OCTOBER 8, 2015 

Reported without amendment 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Package Report

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Document:
Name: telework-infographic.ai
Color Mode: CMYK color
Color Profile: U.S. Web Coated (SWOP) v2
Ruler Units: pixels
Artboard Dimensions: 800 px x 3781 px
Show Images in Outline Mode: OFF
Highlight Substituted Fonts: OFF
Highlight Substituted Glyphs: OFF
Preserve Text Editability
Simulate Colored Paper: OFF

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spot Color Objects:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Missing Fonts:NONE

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Protected Fonts that were not packaged:
MerriweatherLight Italic (Typekit Fonts)
Proxima Nova Bold (Typekit Fonts)
Proxima Nova Semibold (Typekit Fonts)
Roboto Bold (Typekit Fonts)
Roboto Black (Typekit Fonts)
Proxima Nova (Typekit Fonts)
Proxima Nova Light (Typekit Fonts)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fonts:
Savoye LET Plain:1.0 (TrueType)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Embedded Fonts:
NONE

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Missing Links:
NONE

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linked Images:
NONE
Order filed April 1, 2022 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-21-00134-CV

____________

CAROLINE N. OGU, Appellant

V.

SOLOMON ERIC BOWENS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No 6

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 20-CCV-067418

O R D E R

The clerk’s record was filed March 24, 2021. Our review has determined 

that a relevant item has been omitted from the clerk's record. See Tex. R. App. P.

34.5(c). The record does not contain Plaintiff’s Opposed Motion for Summary 

Judgment” and attached Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H filed December 7, 

2020.
The Fort Bend County Clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk’s record 

on or before April 11, 2022, containing Plaintiff’s Opposed Motion for Summary 

Judgment” and attached Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H filed December 7, 

2020.

If the omitted item is not part of the case file, the district clerk is directed to 

file a supplemental clerk’s record containing a certified statement that the omitted 

item is not a part of the case file.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Jewell, Zimmerer, Hassan.
#### YELLOW MFG. ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION v. SCOTT MOTOR CO.

No. 2070.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Waco.

Feb. 3, 1938.

Henry P. Edwards, of Dallas, for appellant.

Harry Flentgé, of Gatesville, and Moran & Mason, of Waco, for appellee.

’ GALLAGHER, Chief Justice.

'This appeal is prosecuted from an order made in chambers by the judge of the district court of Coryell .county restraining appellant from selling six certain trucks at either public or private sale for and during a stipulated period. Said period has expired. The issue involved has therefore become moot and the appeal is dismissed:
EXHIBIT 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, William V. Carney, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Porta Systems Corp.;

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  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
      fourth  fiscal  quarter 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 the  registrant's  board of
directors:

      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/ William V. Carney
                                               ------------------------------
Dated: March 26, 2004                          William V. Carney
                                               Chief Executive Officer
#### PHILIPS v. STATE.

No. 18231.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 8, 1936.

French Robertson, of Haskell, for pellant. ap-

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

HAWKINS, Judge.

Conviction is for theft of two mules; punishment assessed being two years in the penitentiary.

Appellant has filed with this court his affidavit advising that he does not desire to further prosecute his appeal, and at his request the same is dismissed.

MORROW, P. J., absent.
[No. 46118-4-I.

Division One.

December 26, 2000.]

#### Cheryl Parker, *Respondent,*v. Amber Lee, et al., *Appellants.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 98-2-23332-0, Richard D. Eadie, J., entered December 8, 1999, and January 25, 2000. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Coleman, J., concurred in by Agid, C.J., and Baker, J.
# Official Journal C 150A/4 Ju

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 150A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 504 July 2007 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 150A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 504 July 2007

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | |
| 2007/C 150A/01 | NOTICE TO READERS | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

2007/C 150A/01

NOTICE TO READERS

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | Council |
| 2007/C 150A/02 | Notification of open competition CONS/AD/428 — Organised by the Council in the field of security | 3 |
| 2007/C 150A/03 | Notification of open competition CONS/AD/429 — Organised by the Council in the field of security | 13 |

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

Council

2007/C 150A/02

Notification of open competition CONS/AD/428 — Organised by the Council in the field of security

3

2007/C 150A/03

Notification of open competition CONS/AD/429 — Organised by the Council in the field of security

13

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
#### Thomas DWEN, as President of the Suffolk County Patrolmen’s Benevolent Assoc. and Thomas Dwen, Individually, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John L. BARRY, Commissioner of the Suffolk County Police Department, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 1177, Docket 74-1900.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Submitted May 6, 1976.

Decided June 25, 1976.

Patrick A. Sweeney, Asst. County Atty., Northport, N. Y. (George W. Percy, County Atty., on the brief), for defendant-appellant.

Leonard D. Wexler, Smithtown, N. Y. (Richard T. Haefeli, Smithtown, N. Y., on the brief), for plaintiff-appellee.

Before SMITH, OAKES and TIMBERS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The Supreme Court, in its opinion of April 5, 1976, 425 U.S. 238, reversed our judgment of January 9, 1975, 508 F.2d 836, and remanded the case to us for further proceedings in conformity with the opinion of the Supreme Court.

This case initially came before us on an appeal from the Eastern District of New York which had dismissed plaintiff’s complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against a regulation promulgated by defendant limiting the length of a policeman’s hair. On August 22, 1973, we reversed and remanded tor trial of the issue as to whether there was a genuine public need for the regulation. *Dwen v. Barry,*483 F.2d 1126 (2 Cir. 1973).

On remand the district court, after taking testimony, held that defendant had failed to sustain his burden of proving that there was a genuine public need for the regulation. The district court accordingly granted the relief sought by plaintiff, declaring the regulation unconstitutional and enjoining its enforcement. On January 9, 1975, we affirmed from the bench. *Dwen v. Barry,*508 F.2d 836 (2 Cir. 1975).

The Supreme Court granted certiorari, 421 U.S. 987, to consider the constitutional doctrine embodied in our decision and that of the district court. The Supreme Court’s decision of April 5,1976, *sub nom. Kelley v. Johnson,*425 U.S. 238, reversed our decision of January 9, 1975.

Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s remand, we entered an order on May 6, 1976 vacating our judgment of January 9, 1975. Although we have been informed that the regulation involved has been repealed and the case therefore may be moot, we nevertheless remand the case to the district court with instructions to dismiss the complaint in conformity with the opinion of the Supreme Court. We leave to the district court the determination whether the dismissal should be on grounds of mootness. Costs to defendant in this Court.

Remanded with instructions.