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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM
10-QSB REPORT OF OVM INTERNATIONAL HOLDING CORP. FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH REPORT.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                           1030916
<NAME>                   OVM INTERNATIONAL HOLDING CORP.
<MULTIPLIER>                                      1,000
<CURRENCY>                                RENMINBI YUAN

<S>                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                    8.28
<CASH>                                           28,932
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    42,038
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                      41,512
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                160,636
<PP&E>                                           32,707
<DEPRECIATION>                                   10,824
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  214,686
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           105,766
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                             10
<OTHER-SE>                                       68,903
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    214,686
<SALES>                                         127,367
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                127,367
<CGS>                                            75,301
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    75,301
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 35,056
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                2,634
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  15,446
<INCOME-TAX>                                      2,100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               9,036
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                      9,036
<EPS-BASIC>                                      0.75
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      0.75



</TABLE>
112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 13 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Whereas over 2,000,000 members of the United States 

Armed Forces have deployed to theaters of war since the 

commencement of Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Operation New Dawn; 

Whereas hundreds of thousands of members of the United 

States Armed Forces have deployed for multiple tours of 

duty, leaving their homes, their families, and in many 

cases, their civilian jobs; 

Whereas more than 5,500 members of the United States 

Armed Forces have made the ultimate sacrifice for the 

United States while serving in Iraq or Afghanistan; 

Whereas tens of thousands of members of the United States 

Armed Forces have been seriously wounded in the line of 

duty while serving in Iraq or Afghanistan; 

Whereas the members of the United States Armed Forces 

who have participated in Operation Enduring Freedom, 

Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Operation New Dawn have 

answered the call to duty of the United States, serving 

bravely and nobly and, in most cases, without fanfare or 

acclaim; 

Whereas those members of the United States Armed Forces 

and veterans have personified the virtues of patriotism, 

service, duty, courage, and sacrifice; and 
2 

†SCON 13 ES 

Whereas the people of the United States recognize the service 

and sacrifices made by those members of the United 

States Armed Forces and veterans, as well as their families: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That Congress— 

3 (1) honors the members of the United States 

4 Armed Forces who are serving in, or have served in, 

5 Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Free6 dom, and Operation New Dawn; and 

7 (2) calls on the people of the United States to 

8 reflect on the service of those members of the United 

9 States Armed Forces and veterans and to hold those 

10 members and veterans in a special place of honor, 

11 both now and in the future. 

Passed the Senate May 25, 2011. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 13 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Honoring the service and sacrifice of members of 

New Dawn. dom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Operation in, or have served in, Operation Enduring Freethe United States Armed Forces who are serving
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KENNETH A. WEBB, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

SECRETARY U.S. ARMY, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

No. 16-55652 

D.C. No. 2:15-cv-08807-SVW-SS 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 8, 2017**

Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. 

Kenneth A. Webb appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing

his action against the Secretary of the United States Army. We have jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 

12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm in part, 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAY 17 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-55652

vacate in part, and remand. 

The district court properly dismissed Webb’s action because Webb failed to 

allege facts sufficient to show that he had exhausted his administrative remedies or 

was excused from exhaustion. See Muhammad v. Sec’y of Army, 770 F.2d 1494, 

1495 (9th Cir. 1985) (military personnel are required to exhaust available 

intraservice remedies before seeking judicial review); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 

556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (complaint must offer more than “naked assertions 

devoid of further factual enhancement” (citation, internal quotation marks, and 

alterations omitted)). Because a dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative 

remedies should be without prejudice, see O’Guinn v. Lovelock Corr. Ctr., 502 

F.3d 1056, 1063 (9th Cir. 2007), we vacate the judgment in part and remand for the 

district court to dismiss Webb’s action without prejudice. 

The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED.
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 Quarterly Report of Bluefly, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Melissa
Payner-Gregor, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 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 the
Company.

/s/ Melissa Payner-Gregor
-------------------------
Melissa Payner-Gregor
Chief Executive Officer
May 6, 2008
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We have issued our report dated March 9, 2006, accompanying the consolidated
financial statements and schedule included in the Annual Report of TB Wood's
Corporation on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005. We hereby consent
to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statements
of TB Wood's Corporation on Forms S-8 (File No. 33-87936, effective May 9, 2002,
File No. 333-31785 and 333-31787, effective July 22, 1997 and File No. 33-07231,
effective June 28, 1996).

Grant Thornton LLP

Baltimore, Maryland
March 20, 2006
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 45 

Authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center 

for an event to award the Congressional Gold Medal, collectively, to 

the Montford Point Marines. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 5, 2012 

Mrs. HAGAN (for herself and Mr. BURR) submitted the following concurrent 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the Capitol 

Visitor Center for an event to award the Congressional 

Gold Medal, collectively, to the Montford Point Marines. 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), 

3 SECTION 1. USE OF EMANCIPATION HALL FOR EVENT TO 

4 AWARD THE CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDAL. 

5 (a) AUTHORIZATION.—Emancipation Hall in the 

6 Capitol Visitor Center is authorized to be used for an 

7 event on June 27, 2012, to award the Congressional Gold 

8 Medal, collectively, to the Montford Point Marines. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SCON 45 ATS 

1 (b) PREPARATIONS.—Physical preparations for the 

2 conduct of the event described in subsection (a) shall be 

3 carried out in accordance with such conditions as may be 

4 prescribed by the Architect of the Capitol. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2020348EN.01001801.xml

| 19.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 348/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 348/18

---

Order of the General Court of 15 July 2020 — Koopman International v EUIPO — Tinnus Enterprises and Mystic Products (Fluid distribution equipment)

(Case T-838/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing fluid distribution equipment - Suspension of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal - Act not open to challenge - Preparatory act - Inadmissibility)

(2020/C 348/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Koopman International BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: G. van den Bergh and B. Brouwer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervener before the General Court: Tinnus Enterprises LLC (Plano, Texas, United States) (represented by: A. Odle, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Mystic Products Import & Export, SL (Badalona, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the provisional decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 18 September 2019 (Case R 1005/2018-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Mystic Products Import & Export and Koopman International, on the one hand, and Tinnus Enterprises, on the other hand.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Koopman International BV shall pay its own costs and the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Tinnus Enterprises LLC. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Koopman International BV shall pay its own costs and the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Tinnus Enterprises LLC.

---

(1)  OJ C 45, 10.2.2020.

---
Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
  1)
    
    such Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the twelve months
ended December 31, 2010, fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2)
    
    the information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K of the
Company for the twelve months ended December 31, 2010, fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of Plumas Bancorp.
 Date: March 23, 2011
    /s/ Andrew J. RybackAndrew J. Ryback, InterimPresident and  Chief Executive Officer
#### Christopher E. WHITE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles D. LEE, M.D., Health Care Manager; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-15874.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 15, 2011.*

Filed July 1, 2011.

Jennifer J. Nygaard, Esquire, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appel-lees.

Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Christopher E. White, a former California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison personnel violated his Eighth Amendment rights by acting with deliberate indifference to his medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Sanchez v. Vild,*891 F.2d 240, 241-42 (9th Cir.1989). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because White failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant’s decision to treat White’s diabetes with oral medications instead of insulin amounted to deliberate indifference. *See Sanchez,*891 F.2d at 242 (a difference of opinion about the best course of medical treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying White’s request for a continuance under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f) to conduct additional discovery because White failed to show how allowing additional discovery would have precluded summary judgment. *See Tatum, v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco,*441 F.3d 1090, 1100-01 (9th Cir.2006) (setting forth standard of review).

White’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. *See Padgett v. Wright, 587*F.3d 983, *985 n. 2 (9th*Cir.2009) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6797

ALEXANDER FRANKLIN JACKSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

D. COOK, Officer; R. VERMILLION, Officer Lieutenant; COUNTY OF FAIRFAX; FAIRFAX CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Unit #30,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-95-404-2)

Submitted: October 3, 1996 Decided: October 15, 1996

Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alexander Franklin Jackson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his

42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. The district court assessed a

filing fee in accordance with Evans v. Croom, 650 F.2d 521 (4th

Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1153 (1982), and dismissed the

case without prejudice when Appellant failed to comply with the

fee order. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm the district

court's order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**EXHIBIT 32**

** **

**Certification**

**Pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

**(Subsections(a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, UnitedStates Code)**

** **

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of CuraGenCorporation (the “Company”) for the period ended September 30, 2009 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),the undersigned, Anthony S. Marucci, Chief Executive Officer and President ofthe Company, and Avery W. Catlin, Senior Vice-President and Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,that:

 

(1)       The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities 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.

 

 
| Dated: November 6,  2009 | By:                                                             | /s/ Anthony S. Marucci |
|-------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------|
|                          | Anthony S. Marucci                                              |
|                          | President and Chief  Executive Officer                          |
|                          | (principal executive  officer of the registrant)                |
|                          |                                                            |
|                          |                                                            |
| Dated: November 6,  2009 | By:                                                             | /s/ Avery W. Catlin    |
|                          | Avery W. Catlin                                                 |
|                          | Senior Vice-President  and Chief Financial Officer              |
|                          | (principal financial and accounting  officer of the registrant) |

 

----
# C_2019139EN.01009202.xml

| 15.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 139/92 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 139/92

---

Action brought on 20 February 2019 — Boshab v Council

(Case T-111/19)

(2019/C 139/92)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Évariste Boshab (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, M. Forgeois, and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1940 of 10 December 2018, in so far as the applicant remains at No 8 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1940 of 10 December 2018, in so far as the applicant remains at No 8 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP;

| — | annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1931 of 10 December 2018, in so far as the applicant remains at No 8 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1931 of 10 December 2018, in so far as the applicant remains at No 8 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;

| — | rule that the provisions of Article 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP and Article 2b(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 1183/2005/EC are unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

rule that the provisions of Article 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP and Article 2b(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 1183/2005/EC are unlawful;

| — | order the Council to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those raised in Case T-103/19, Mende Omalanga v Council.

---
#### Elfrida Powell, Administratrix, *vs.*Northern Pacific Railroad Company.

June 3, 1891.

Inspection of Books, etc., before Trial, When Ordered. — Books, documents, or papers, production and inspection of which may be required under Gen. St. 1878, c. 73, § 88, must be such as may be used by plaintiff or defendant as evidence on the trial. If they contain merely hearsay', so that neither party could use them as evidence, such production or inspection cannot be called for.

Eailway — Negligence—Evidence.—Evidence not sufficient to justify a verdict for plaintiff.

Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for Crow Wing county, *Holland,*J., presiding, refusing a new trial after verdict for defendant.

*J. B. Douglas*and *Wetherby, True é Warner,*for appellant.

*John G. Bullitt, Jr.,*and *Tilden B. Selmes,*for respondent.

Gilfillan, C. J.

The action is on the ground of alleged negligence causing the death of the person for whose estate plaintiff is administratrix, such person having been, as alleged, killed while a servant of defendant engaged in his duty of uncoupling some cars, the negligence alleged consisting in moving the cars without any warning while he was uncoupling them, and in the failure to have the space between what is called the “guard rail" and “main rail” blocked or filled as required by statute. Before the trial, the. plaintiff procured *ex parte*an order requiring the defendant to produce, .at the opening of the trial, for the inspection and use of the plaintiff rs evidence, certain reports or statements in writing as to facts and circumstances of the killing, alleged to have been made to defendant, at its request, by certain of its employes. On the trial this order was vacated, and rightly, because such reports or statements, being necessarily but narrations or recitals of past events, were in the nature of hearsay, and could not be used as evidence of such events, either by the plaintiff or the defendant. Gen. St. 1878, c. 73, § 88 *250refers only to books, documents, or papers “containing evidence relating to the merits of the action, or the defence therein; ” that is,, which may be used as evidence on the trial.

What was said to the undertaker by those, appearing to be fellow-servants of deceased, who brought to him the remains of deceased, was clearly hearsay. The evidence offered, that a shoe of' deceased was, two years after the death, applied to a guard and main rail, and that certain marks on the shoe corresponded with and fitted between those rails, was inadmissible, for the reasons, among others,, that there was no evidence that deceased was killed at that place,, and none that the rails remained in the same condition. It is unnecessary to consider the charge, for on the evidence defendant was-entitled to a verdict. We have never known a case of the kind so-utterly bare of evidence to sustain the complaint. There is none-whatever as to what deceased was doing, or as to how he came to be-killed, and none as to where he was found when dead.

Order affirmed.