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


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 NOV-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   APR-30-1998
<CASH>                                              70,314
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,550,113
<ALLOWANCES>                                       215,000
<INVENTORY>                                      1,831,898
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,834,906
<PP&E>                                           3,687,591
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,521,164
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,194,525
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,919,311
<BONDS>                                          4,251,748
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             4,000
<OTHER-SE>                                         967,257
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,194,525
<SALES>                                         13,181,142
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,181,142
<CGS>                                           11,329,593
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,329,593
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,244,094
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 186,403
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    421,052
<INCOME-TAX>                                        46,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                375,052
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       375,052
<EPS-BASIC>                                            .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0



</TABLE>
Exhibit 4.1




THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON


NEW YORK’S FIRST BANK-FOUNDED 1784 BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON


 


 


2 HANSON PLACE, 12TH FLOOR, BROOKLYN,
N.Y. 11217


 


 


 


March 19, 2014


 


Hennion & Walsh, Inc.


2001 Route 46, Waterview Plaza


Parsippany, New Jersey 07054


 


Smart Trust, Zacks Diversified Equity &
Corporate Bond Trust, Series 5


Dear Sirs:


The Bank of New York
Mellon is acting as trustee for Smart Trust, Zacks Diversified Equity & Corporate Bond Trust, Series 5 set forth above (the
“Trust”). We enclosed a list of the Securities to be deposited in the Trust on the date hereof. The prices indicated
therein reflect our evaluation of such Securities as of close of business on March 19, 2014, in accordance with the valuation method
set forth in the Trust Indenture and Agreement. We consent to the reference to The Bank of New York Mellon as the party performing
the evaluations of the Trust Securities in the Registration Statement (No. 333-193674) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
with respect to the registration of the sale of the Trust Units and to the filing of this consent as an exhibit thereto.


 


Very truly yours,


 


/s/ GERARDO CIPRIANO                              


Gerardo Cipriano


Vice President
#### CHUNHONG HAN, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 13-71894

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 18, 2017 *

Filed December 20, 2017

Chunhong Han, Pro Se

Samuel P. Go, Senior Litigation Counsel, Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, Matthew Allan Spur-lock, Attorney, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Chunhong Han, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. *Zehatye v. Gonzales,*453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We do not consider the materials Han references in her opening brief that are not part of the administrative record. *See Fisher v. INS,*79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (court’s review is limited to the administrative record).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Han’s contention regarding China’s “exit laws,” because she did not raise it to the BIA. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Han failed to demonstrate the harm she experienced in China rose to the level of persecution. *See Gu v. Gonzales,*454 F.3d 1014, 1019-21 (9th Cir. 2006) (evidence did not compel the conclusion that petitioner suffered past persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s conclusion that Han did not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. *See id.*at 1022 (petitioner did not “present compelling, objective evidence demonstrating a well-founded fear of persecution”). Thus, her asylum claim fails.

In this case, because Han failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she did not satisfy the standard for’ withholding of removal. *See Zehatye,*453 F.3d at 1190.

Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because Han failed to show it is more likely than not she would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Chinese government. *See Silaya v. Mukasey,*524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).

*862PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
* 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. 98-40271 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JEFFERY CHARLES BELL, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:97CR19-3

- - - - - - - - - - December 9, 1998 Before DAVIS, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jeffery Charles Bell appeals from his sentence following his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine base. Bell argues that the district court clearly erred in applying U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) for possession of a firearm. Section 2D1.1(b)(1) should be applied if a firearm was present during a drug offense, unless it is clearly improbable that the firearm was not connected with the offense. § 2D1.1, comment. (n.3). The determination that a defendant possessed a firearmNo. 98-40271 -2- pursuant to § 2D1.1(b)(1) is a factual finding, which is reviewed

for clear error. United States v. Vital , 68 F.3d 114, 119 (5th Cir. 1995). The Government may prove that the defendant personally possessed a weapon for purposes of § 2B1.1(b)(1) by showing a temporal and spatial relationship between the weapon, the proscribed activity, and the defendant. United States v. Ramos , 71 F.3d 1150, 1157 (5th Cir. 1995), cert. denied , 517 U.S. 1227 (1996). The search of Bell’s residence revealed a firearm in the same room as the cocaine base. This search was conducted on the same day that Bell sold cocaine base to a DEA informant. The district court did not clearly err in applying § 2D1.1(b)(1) in calculating Bell’s sentence.
AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.2



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



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Applied Imaging Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Terence Griffin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



(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 Company.



|                   |  |     |  |                        
|------------------ |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Date: May 23, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ TERENCE GRIFFIN    
|                   |  |     |  | Terence Griffin        
|                   |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer



This certification
accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
# C_2021338EN.01004401.xml

| 23.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 338/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/44

---

Action brought on 14 July 2021 — Assaad v Council

(Case T-426/21)

(2021/C 338/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Nizar Assaad (Beirut, Lebanon) (represented by: M. Lester, Barrister, G. Martin and C. Enderby Smith, Solicitors)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should annul the Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/751 of 6 May 2021 (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/743 of 6 May 2021 (2), which amend entry 36 to Annex I to Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP and entry 36 to Annex II to Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 (‘the Contested Measures’), in so far as they apply to the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant alleges that the Council has repeatedly stated since 2011 that the applicant is not the person listed at entry 36 to the EU’s restrictive measures on Syria. By the Contested Measures, the Council has sought to reverse this position, and now, without any justification or factual or legal basis, contends that the applicant has in fact been listed since 2011. The applicant’s grounds for annulment challenge the Council’s volte face in the Contested Measures as being based on multiple errors of assessment; unlawfully retroactive and inimical to the principle of legal certainty; an abuse and misuse of the Council’s powers; and contrary to the principle of res judicata.

---

(1)  OJ 2021, L 160, p. 115.

(2)  OJ 2021, L 160, p. 1.

---
# C_2021391EN.01002802.xml

| 27.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 391/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 391/28

---

Action brought on 16 August 2021 — Philip Morris Products v EUIPO (Device of a combination of lines in black and white forming the angle of a cube)

(Case T-501/21)

(2021/C 391/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Philip Morris Products SA (Neuchâtel, Switzerland) (represented by: L. Alonso Domingo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark (Device of a combination of lines in black and white forming the angle of a cube) — Application for registration No 18 252 130

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 June 2021 in Case R 79/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by erroneously assessing the perception of the relevant consumers; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by erroneously assessing the perception of the relevant consumers;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council with respect to the trademark at issue. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council with respect to the trademark at issue.

---
Exhibit 99.1

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

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of ALARIS Medical, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, David L. Schlotterbeck, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to
§906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|/s/DAVID L. SCHLOTTERBECKDavid L. Schlotterbeck
President and Chief Executive Officer
August 8, 2002 |  | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

---

QuickLinks
# C_2021217EN.01006701.xml

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/67 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/67

---

Action brought on 17 April 2021 — Ignacio Carrasco v EUIPO — Santos Carrasco Manzano (La Hoja del Carrasco)

(Case T-209/21)

(2021/C 217/84)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Ignacio Carrasco SL (Guijuelo, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Donoso Romero, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Santos Carrasco Manzano SA (Guijuelo, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark La Hoja del Carrasco — EU trade mark application No 15 670 813

Procedure before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 February 2021 in Case R 175/2020-1

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | Annul the contested decision in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested decision in its entirety;

| — | Consequently, dismiss the application for a declaration of invalidity in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

Consequently, dismiss the application for a declaration of invalidity in its entirety;

| — | Order EUIPO and Santos Carrasco Manzano SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order EUIPO and Santos Carrasco Manzano SA to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 60(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEET-JANUARY 28, 1996 AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE
THREE MONTHS ENDED JANUARY 28, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-27-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-30-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-28-1996
<CASH>                                           4,683
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,041
<ALLOWANCES>                                       223
<INVENTORY>                                      8,621
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                25,837
<PP&E>                                          12,665
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,747
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  42,181
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,881
<BONDS>                                          9,408
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           214
<OTHER-SE>                                      19,020
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    42,181
<SALES>                                         17,063
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                17,063
<CGS>                                           13,318
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,318
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,399
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 213
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    133
<INCOME-TAX>                                        59
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                133
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       133
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### COM. v. SHICK, R.

5 WDA 2017

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/18/2017

147 CR 1977 (Clarion)

Affirmed
II 

Calendar No. 88 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 828 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 1, 2019 

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

Governmental Affairs 

MAY 15, 2019 

Reported by Mr. JOHNSON, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 25 Route 111 in Smithtown, New York, as 

the ‘‘Congressman Bill Carney 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. CONGRESSMAN BILL CARNEY POST OFFICE. 

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

5 Postal Service located at 25 Route 111 in Smithtown, New 

6 York, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Congressman 

7 Bill Carney Post Office’’. 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 828 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 ‘‘Congressman Bill Car5 ney Post Office’’. 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS

pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 88 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 828 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostPost Office’’. New York, as the ‘‘Congressman Bill Carney al Service located at 25 Route 111 in Smithtown, 

MAY 15, 2019 

Reported without amendment 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
# C_2021182EN.01006801.xml

| 10.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/68 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/68

---

Corrigendum to notice in the Official Journal in Case T-87/21

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 110 of 29 March 2021
  )

(2021/C 182/92)

On page 37, Case T-87/21, Condor Flugdienst v Commission should read as follows:

‘Action brought on 12 February 2021 — Condor Flugdienst v Commission

(Case T-87/21)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Condor Flugdienst GmbH (Kelsterbach, Germany) (represented by: A. Israel, J. Lang and M. Negro, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendant’s decision of 25 June 2020 on State aid SA.57153 (2020/N) — Germany — COVID-19: Aid to Lufthansa (1), and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s decision of 25 June 2020 on State aid SA.57153 (2020/N) — Germany — COVID-19: Aid to Lufthansa (1), and

| — | order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed its obligation to initiate the formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed its obligation to initiate the formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment by holding that the aid to Lufthansa is compatible with the internal market under Article 107(3)(b) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment by holding that the aid to Lufthansa is compatible with the internal market under Article 107(3)(b) TFEU.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to fulfil its duty to state reasons.’ |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to fulfil its duty to state reasons.’

---

(1)  OJ C 397, 20.11.2020, p. 2.

1

---
# Официален вестник C 179A/25 м

| | ISSN 1977-0855 |
| --- | --- |
| Официален вестник
  на Европейския съюз | C 179A |
| | |
| Издание на български език | Информация и известия | Година 6125 май 2018 г. |

ISSN 1977-0855

Официален вестник

на Европейския съюз

C 179A

Издание на български език

Информация и известия

Година 6125 май 2018 г.

---

| Съдържание | Страница |
| --- | --- |
| | Поправки |
| 2018/C 179 A/01 | Поправка на Обявление за наемане на работа РЕ/197/S ( ОВ C 144 A, 25.4.2018 г. ) | 1 |

Съдържание

Страница

Поправки

2018/C 179 A/01

Поправка на Обявление за наемане на работа РЕ/197/S ( ОВ C 144 A, 25.4.2018 г. )

( ОВ C 144 A, 25.4.2018 г. )

1

---

| BG | |
| --- | --- |

BG

---

Поправки

| 25.5.2018 | BG | Официален вестник на Европейския съюз | CA 179/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2018

BG

Официален вестник на Европейския съюз

CA 179/1

---

Поправка на Обявление за наемане на работа РЕ/197/S

(
  Официален вестник С 144 А от 25 април 2018 г.
  )

(2018/C 179 A/01)

Страница 1:

вместо:

„Европейският парламент организира процедура за подбор по документи и чрез изпити за съставянето на списък на успешно преминали процедурата за подбор кандидати за заемане на единадесет длъжности на“

да се чете:

да се чете:

„Европейският парламент организира процедура за подбор по документи и чрез изпити за съставянето на списък на успешно преминали процедурата за подбор кандидати за заемане на длъжности на“

Страница 2, дял А: 1. Общи положения, първи абзац:

Страница 2, дял А: 1. Общи положения, първи абзац:

вместо:

вместо:

„Европейският парламент реши да открие процедура за заемане на единадесет длъжности на срочно нает служител: личен охранител (1) (AST 3) в Генерална дирекция за сигурността и безопасността, Дирекция за дейност на място и подпомагане, сигурност и безопасност.“

да се чете:

да се чете:

„Европейският парламент реши да открие процедура за заемане на длъжности на срочно нает служител: личен охранител (AST 3) (1) в Генерална дирекция за сигурността и безопасността, Дирекция за дейност на място и подпомагане, сигурност и безопасност.“

---

(1)  Всяко позоваване в настоящото обявление на лице от мъжки пол се отнася и за лице от женски пол, като важи и обратното.

1

---