alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Coffee      Holding Co., Inc.**

**Computation      of Per Share Earnings (Loss)**

**(Unaudited)      **

|                                                    |   | Three                Months Ended January 31, |      |
|---------------------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------|-----------|
|                                                    |   | 2007                                          |      | 2006 |   |
| Net                Income                               |   | $                                             | 309,684   |   | $ | 519,638 |   |
| **BASIC                EARNINGS:**                      |   |                                          |      |   |   |   |   |
| Weighted                average number of common shares |   |                                          |      |   |   |   |   |
| outstanding                                             |   |                                          | 5,529,830 |   |   | 5,529,830 |   |
| Basic                earnings per common share          |   | $                                             | 0.06      |   | $ | 0.09 |   |
| **DILUTED                EARNINGS:**                    |   |                                          |      |   |   |   |   |
| Weighted                average number of common shares |   |                                          |      |   |   |   |   |
| outstanding                                             |   |                                          | 5,529,830 |   |   | 5,529,830 |   |
| Warrants                - common stock equivalents      |   |                                          | 70,000    |   |   | 62,420 |   |
| Weighted                average number of common shares |   |                                          |      |   |   |   |   |
| outstanding                - as adjusted                |   |                                          | 5,599,830 |   |   | 5,593,250 |   |
| Diluted                earnings per common share        |   | $                                             | 0.06      |   | $ | 0.09 |   |

----
No. 11-9152.

#### Pike *v.*Tennessee.

Ct. Crim. App. Tenn. Certiorari denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                                Certification of
                             Chief Executive Officer
                        of Mission Resources Corporation

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350, and accompanies the annual report on Form 10-K (the
"Form 10-K") for the period ended December 31, 2002 of Mission Resources
Corporation (the "Issuer").

I, Robert L. Cavnar, the Chief Executive Officer of the Issuer, certify that:

     (i)  the Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
          section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and

     (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Issuer.

Dated:  March 25, 2003

                                            /s/ Robert L. Cavnar
                                            ------------------------------------


Subscribed and sworn to before me
this 25th day of March 2003



/s/ Carmen M. Garcia
--------------------------------------


Notary Public in and for the
State of Texas

My commission expires:







A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Mission Resources Corporation and will be retained by Mission
Resources Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 7 (Friday, January 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 1448]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-600]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP96-200-015]


NorAm Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Filing

January 7, 1997.
    Take notice that on January 2, 1997, NorAm Gas Transmission Company 
(NGT) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Fourth 
Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff sheets to be 
effective January 1, 1997:

Ninth Revised Sheet No. 7
Second Revised Sheet No. 7A
Second Revised Sheet No. 7B
Second Revised Sheet No. 7C
Second Revised Sheet No. 7D
Second Revised Sheet No. 7E

    NGT states that these tariff sheets are filed herewith to reflect 
specific negotiated rate transactions for the month of January, 1997.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a motion to 
intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 
First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Rule 211 
of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). 
All such protests must be filed as provided in Section 154.210 of the 
Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission 
in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve 
to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for public 
inspection.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-600 Filed 1-9-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
# C_2023015EN.01004801.xml

| 16.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/48

---

Order of the General Court of 8 November 2022 — Hahn Rechtsanwälte v Commission

(Case T-87/22) (1)

(2023/C 15/62)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Ninth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 165, 19.4.2022.

---
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**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 Annual Report of Puget Energy, Inc. and Puget Sound Energy,
      Inc. (the "Companies") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
      2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
      (the "Form 10-K"), I, Stephen P. Reynolds, the Chairman, President and
      Chief Executive Officer of the Companies, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:




(1) The
      Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




(2) The
      information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Companies.











Date:
                February 27, 2006/s/
                Stephen P. ReynoldsStephen
                P. ReynoldsChairman,
                President and Chief Executive
                Officer
#### Larry GIRALDES, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Scott KERNAN,* Secretary of the California Department of Corrections, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-16144

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 18, 2017 **

Filed December 21, 2017

Larry Giraldes, Jr., Pro Se

Arthur B. Mark, III, Esquire, Attorney, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

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

*

 Scott Kernan has been substituted for his predecessor, Jeffrey A. Beard, as Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation under Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2).

**

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

MEMORANDUM ****

California state prisoner Larry Giraldes, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing as moot his claims challenging a California regulation relating to certain prisoners’ family overnight visits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the question whether a case is moot. *Native Vill. of Noatak v. Blatchford,*38 F.3d 1505, 1509 (9th Cir. 1994). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Giraldes’s action as moot because the challenged policy is no longer being enforced due to a change in policy arising from a statutory amendment. *See id.*at 1510 (“As a general rule, if a challenged law is repealed or expires, the case becomes moot.”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Giraldes’s motion for reconsideration because Giraldes failed to demonstrate any grounds for such relief. *See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty.,**938*Or. v. ACandS, Inc.,*5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th- Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and listing grounds warranting reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b)).

We reject as without merit Giraldes’s contention concerning ineffective assistance of counsel. *See Nicholson v. Rushen,*767 F.2d 1426, 1427 (9th Cir. 1985) (“Generally, a plaintiff in a civil case has no right to effective assistance of counsel.”),

AFFIRMED,

****

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration

1401 Constitution Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20230 

CERTIFICATE OF INDIRECT COSTS

This is to certify that I have reviewed the indirect cost rate proposal prepared and maintained 

herewith and to the best of my knowledge and belief: 

(1) All costs included in this proposal dated _______________[identify date indirect cost rate 

proposal was finalized] to establish indirect costs rate(s) for_________________ [identify 

start/end dates for the fiscal year covered by the indirect cost rate] are allowable in 

accordance with the requirements of the Federal award(s) to which they apply and OMB Uniform 

Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards 

(codified at 2 C.F.R. Part 200) Unallowable costs have been adjusted for in allocating costs as 

indicated in the cost allocation plan. 

(2) All costs included in this proposal are properly allocable to Federal awards on the basis of a 

beneficial or causal relationship between the expenses incurred and the agreements to which they 

are allocated in accordance with applicable requirements. Further, the same costs that have been 

treated as indirect costs have not been claimed as direct costs. Similar types of costs have been 

accounted for consistently and the Federal Government will be notified of any accounting 

changes that would affect the predetermined rate. 

(3) The indirect cost rate calculated within the proposal is _______________ [identify rate(s)], 

which was calculated using a direct cost base type of ________________ [identify type of direct 

cost base – Salary & Fringe, MTDC, etc.]. The calculations were based on actual costs from 

fiscal year ____ to obtain a federal indirect cost billing rate for fiscal year ________________. 

(4) All documentation supporting the indirect cost rate identified above must be retained by the 

Recipient. This rate should be reviewed and validated as part of the Recipient’s annual financial 

audit. 

Subject to the provisions of the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986, (31 USC 3801 et 

seq.), the False Claims Act (18 USC 287 and 31 USC 3729); and the False Statement Act (18 

USC 1001), I declare to the best of my knowledge that the foregoing is true and correct. 

Organization Name: 

Signature: 

Name of Authorized Official: 

Title: 

Email Address and Phone: 

Date of Execution:
#### Todd A. BAIRD; Dana G. Baird, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-2375

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: October 27, 2017

Decided: December 14, 2017

*124Henry W. McLaughlin, III, LAW OFFICE OF HENRY MCLAUGHLIN, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellants. Andrew B. Pittman, Maryia Jones, Kendall A. Hamilton, TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Todd and Dana Baird appeal the district court’s order granting the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation’s motion to dismiss the Bairds’ breach of contract claim. We have reviewed the record and agree with the district court that the Bairds failed to sufficiently allege the existence of a legally enforceable loan modification agreement. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. *See Baird v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp.,*No. 3:15-cv-00041-GEC, 2016 WL 6583732 (W.D. Va. Nov. 4, 2016); *see also Chang v. First Colonial Sav. Bank,*242 Va. 388, 410 S.E.2d 928, 930 (1991) (“Where the offer is clear, definite, and explicit, and leaves nothing open for negotiation, it constitutes an offer, acceptance of which will complete the contract.” (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)); *Berry v. Wortham,*96 Va. 87, 30 S.E. 443, 444 (1898) (holding that for a contract to “be complete and certain...., all the terms which the parties have adopted as portions of their contract must be finally and definitely settled, and none must be left to be determined by future negotiations; and this is true without any regard to the comparative importance or unimportance of these several terms”). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
# Certification of the
Chief Executive Officer and Vice President  Finance

Solely for the purpose of complying
with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, we, the undersigned Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and Vice President 
Finance of Northland Cranberries, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify, based on
our knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months
ended November 30, 2003 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

|                     |                    
|-------------------- | -------------------
|/s/ John Swendrowski | /s/ Nigel J. Cooper
|John Swendrowski     | Nigel J. Cooper    
|January 14, 2004     | January 14, 2004
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED APRIL 12, 2019

NO. 03-18-00118-CV

Eric Jonjak, Appellant

v.

Kathye Marlene Griffith, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 98TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, BAKER, AND SMITH

MODIFIED AND, AS MODIFIED, AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE SMITH

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on December 1, 2017. Having 

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error 

in the trial court’s judgment but that there was error requiring correction. Therefore, the Court 

modifies the trial court’s judgment and qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). We modify 

the trial court’s judgment so that paragraph R-5 reads as follows: A portion of Eric Jonjak’s 

retirement benefits in Bog Farm Profit Sharing 401k Acct. No. 803508-00000 arising out of 

ERIC JONJAK’S employment with Bog Farm as of June 1, 2017, that portion being $962,000. 

We modify paragraph 2 of the QDRO to delete the sentence that reads: [Griffith’s] interest in 

the Plan shall be adjusted for investment earnings and losses allocable thereto in accordance with 
the terms of the Plan thereafter. The Court affirms the judgment as modified. The appellant 

shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                                SUBSIDIARIES OF
                      PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO
                            AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1995

     SUBSIDIARY                                   STATE OF INCORPORATION
     ----------                                   ----------------------

1.  Cheyenne Light, Fuel and Power Company                 Wyoming

2.  e prime, inc                                           Colorado

3.  Fuel Resources Development Co.                         Colorado

4.  Green and Clear Lakes Company                          New York

5.  Natural Fuels Corporation                              Colorado

6.  New Century Energies, Inc.                             Delaware

7.  PS Colorado Credit Corporation                         Colorado

8.  PSR Investments, Inc.                                  Colorado

9.  1480 Welton, Inc.                                      Colorado

10. WestGas InterState, Inc.                               Colorado

11. Young Gas Storage Company                              Delaware

The names of several majority-owned subsidiaries are omitted since such
subsidiaries, considered in the aggregate as a single subsidiary, would not
constitute a significant subsidiary as of December 31, 1995.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

IN RE PAUL R. WIENEKE, SCOTT D. EIKENBERRY,

TIM NUFIRE, DAVID A. KOBLAS, AND BRIAN K.

WILSON 

(REAL PARTY IN INTEREST SONICWALL, INC.)

____________________ 

2011-1250 

(Serial No. 10/449,875) 

______________________

 

 Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. 

______________________ 

JUDGMENT 

______________________ 

COLBY B. SPRINGER, Lewis and Roca LLP, of Mountain 

View, California, argued for the appellant. With him on 

the brief was TAM THANH PHAM. 

JOSEPH G. PICCOLO, Associate Solicitor, Office of the 

Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of 

Alexandria, Virginia, argued for appellee. With him on 

the brief were RAYMOND T. CHEN, Solicitor, and AMY J.

NELSON, Associate Solicitor. 

______________________ 
THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (LOURIE, O’MALLEY, and REYNA, Circuit 

Judges). 

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

 January 13, 2012 /s/Jan Horbaly

 Date Jan Horbaly 

 Clerk
# C_2023179EN.01004502.xml

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/45

---

Order of the General Court of 23 March 2023 — Domaine Boyar International v EUIPO — Consorzio DOC Bolgheri e Bolgheri Sassicaia (BOLGARÉ)

(Case T-300/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark BOLGARÉ - Previous designation of origin ‘Bolgheri’ - Article 8(4a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Article 46(1)(d) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Article 103(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013)

(2023/C 179/67)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Domaine Boyar International EAD (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: F. Bojinova, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Consorzio per la tutela dei vini con denominazione di origine Bolgheri e Bolgheri Sassicaia (Consorzio DOC Bolgheri e Bolgheri Sassicaia) (Castagneto Carducci, Italy) (represented by: D. Caneva and N. Colombo, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 21 March 2022 (Case R 2564/2019-2).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Domaine Boyar International EAD shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Consorzio per la tutela dei vini con denominazione di origine Bolgheri e Bolgheri Sassicaia (Consorzio DOC Bolgheri e Bolgheri Sassicaia). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Domaine Boyar International EAD shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Consorzio per la tutela dei vini con denominazione di origine Bolgheri e Bolgheri Sassicaia (Consorzio DOC Bolgheri e Bolgheri Sassicaia).

| 3. | The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 276, 18.7.2022.

---
# C_2023104EN.01001401.xml

| 20.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 104/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias (Greece) lodged on 2 December 2022 — Micreos Food Safety BV v Eniaios Foreas Elegchou Trofimon (EFET)

(Case C-745/22)

(2023/C 104/17)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Symvoulio tis Epikrateias

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Micreos Food Safety BV

Defendant: Eniaios Foreas Elegchou Trofimon (EFET)

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 (1) be interpreted as meaning that a product such as ListexTM Ρ100 manufactured by the applicant, which has the characteristics described in the opinion of 7 July 2016 of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and, moreover, according to the applicant’s submissions, is applied outside of slaughterhouses during the final stages of the production process and is intended to prevent rather than to remove surface contamination on products of animal origin, comes within the scope of Article 3(2) of the regulation (and its distribution on the European market is therefore subject to prior approval by the Commission in accordance with Article 11a of the regulation)?
  If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative: |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 (1) be interpreted as meaning that a product such as ListexTM Ρ100 manufactured by the applicant, which has the characteristics described in the opinion of 7 July 2016 of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and, moreover, according to the applicant’s submissions, is applied outside of slaughterhouses during the final stages of the production process and is intended to prevent rather than to remove surface contamination on products of animal origin, comes within the scope of Article 3(2) of the regulation (and its distribution on the European market is therefore subject to prior approval by the Commission in accordance with Article 11a of the regulation)?

If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative:

| 2. | Must Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 (2) be interpreted as meaning that the applicant’s product referred to above is a food additive or a processing aid (Article 3(2)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008)? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 (2) be interpreted as meaning that the applicant’s product referred to above is a food additive or a processing aid (Article 3(2)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008)?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (OJ 2004 L 139, p. 55).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on food additives (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2008 L 354, p. 16).

---