alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2011258EN.01001101.xml

| 2.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 258/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 258/11

---

Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures

2011/C 258/06

1.   As provided for in Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1), the European Commission gives notice that, unless a review is initiated in accordance with the following procedure, the anti-dumping measures mentioned below will expire on the date mentioned in the table below.

1

2.   Procedure

Procedure

Union producers may lodge a written request for a review. This request must contain sufficient evidence that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury.

Should the Commission decide to review the measures concerned, importers, exporters, representatives of the exporting country and Union producers will then be provided with the opportunity to amplify, rebut or comment on the matters set out in the review request.

3.   Time limit

Time limit

Union producers may submit a written request for a review on the above basis, to reach the European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade (Unit H-1), N-105 4/92, 1049 Brussels, Belgium (2) at any time from the date of the publication of the present notice but no later than three months before the date mentioned in the table below.

2

4.   This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.

| Product | Country(ies) of origin or exportation | Measures | Reference | Date of expiry (3) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Certain prepared or preserved sweetcorn in kernels | Thailand | Anti-dumping duty | Council Regulation (EC) No 682/2007 (OJ L 159, 20.6.2007, p. 14) as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 847/2009 (OJ L 246, 18.9.2009, p. 1) | 21.6.2012 |

Product

Country(ies) of origin or exportation

Measures

Reference

Date of expiry (3)

3

Certain prepared or preserved sweetcorn in kernels

Thailand

Anti-dumping duty

Council Regulation (EC) No 682/2007 (OJ L 159, 20.6.2007, p. 14) as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 847/2009 (OJ L 246, 18.9.2009, p. 1)

21.6.2012

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.

1

(2)  Fax +32 22956505.

2

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

3

---
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 GFR Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-k for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Zhao Yan Ding, 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, based on 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: March 30, 2011





GFR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.





/s/Zhao Yan DingZhao Yan Ding, Chief Executive Officer
See T EX . R. A PP . P . 52. 8( d) ( “ W hen deny i ng r el i ef , t he c our t m ay han d do w n an opi ni on b ut 1 i s n o t r e q u i re d to d o s o .”) ; T EX . R. A PP . P . 4 7 .4 (d i s ti n g u i s h i n g o p i n i o n s a n d m e m o ra n d u m o p i n i o n s ). 

### NUM BER 13-0 8-21 3-CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I -E DI NBURG I N R E AD O L F O C O RT I N AS On Peti tion for Wr it of M andamus 

## MEM ORA N D U M OPINION Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s Ga rza an d Be na v ide s

Per Curia m M emor andum Opini on 1 Re la t o r, Ad o lfo Co rt in a s , p ro s e , f il e d a p e t it io n fo r wr ito f m a n d a m u s in t h e a b o ve caus e on Apr il 16, 2008. The Co urt, hav ing examined and fully co nsi dered th e pet it ion for w ri t of mandamus , i s o f the opi nio n tha t rela tor hasnot show n hi msel f entit led to the reli ef soug ht. The petit ion generall y fail s t o c omply

w it h Texas Rul e of Appel lat e Procedu re 52.3 an d fai l s t o es ta bl i s h th att he d i s tr i ct c ou rt: ( 1)h ad a l eg al d uty t o pe r for m a2

nondi sc re ti onar

y act, (2 ) w as ask ed to per form the act , and ( 3)fail ed or refused t o do so. See In r e Chavez , 62 S. W .3d 225 , 228 (Tex. App. –Am arillo 2001 , orig. proce edin g) . Acc ordin g ly , t he pet it ion for w ri t of mandamus i s D EN IED . See T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.8( a) . P E R C U R I A M D o no t pu b li sh . SeeT EX . R. A PP . P . 4 7 .2 (b ). M em or andum O pi ni on del i ver ed and fi led this 22 n d da y o f A p ri l, 20 0 8 .
Case 1:09-cv-00257-MP -GRJ Document 162 Filed 10/13/10 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:09-cv-00257-MP -GRJ Document 162 Filed 10/13/10 Page 2 of 2
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Office of the Secretary 

Notice is hereby given in accordance with Section 552b of Title 5, United States Code, that a meeting of the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor Commission will be held on Thursday, November 15, 2007. 

The Commission was established pursuant to Public Law 99-647. The purpose of the Commission is to assist federal, state and local authorities in the development and implementation of an integrated resource management plan for those lands and waters within the Corridor. 

The meeting will convene on November 15, 2007 at 9 a.m. at Douglas Town Hall, located at 29 Depot Street, Douglas, MA for the following reasons: 

1. Approval of Minutes. 

2. Chairman's Report. 

3. Executive Director's Report. 

4. Financial Budget. 

5. Public Input. 

It is anticipated that about twenty-five people will be able to attend the session in addition to the Commission members. 

                    Interested persons may make oral or written presentations to the Commission or file written statements. Such requests should be made prior to the meeting to:  Jan H. Reitsma, Executive Director, John H. Chafee, Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor Commission, One Depot Square, Woonsocket, RI 02895,                     *Tel.:*                     (401) 762-0250.                 

Further information concerning this meeting may be obtained from Jan H. Reitsma, Executive Director of the Commission at the aforementioned address. 

Jan H. Reitsma,

Executive Director, BRVNHCC. 

[FR Doc. 07-4942 Filed 10-4-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-RK-P
# C_2011369EN.01001401.xml

| 17.12.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 369/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.12.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 369/14

---

Joint Political Declaration of 28 September 2011 of Member States and the Commission on explanatory documents

2011/C 369/02

Pursuant to Article 288 TFEU, ‘A directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member State to which it is addressed, but shall leave to the national authorities the choice of form and methods’.

Member States and the Commission recognise that the effective implementation of Union law is a prerequisite for achieving the policy objectives of the Union and that, whilst the responsibility for such implementation lies primarily with Member States, it is a matter of common interest since it aims, inter alia, to create a level playing field in all Member States.

inter alia

Member States and the Commission acknowledge that the correct and timely transposition of Union directives is a legal obligation. They note that the Treaties entrust the Commission with the task of overseeing the application of Union law under the supervision of the Court of Justice and share the common understanding that the notification of transposition measures should facilitate the achievement by the Commission of this task.

In this context, Member States acknowledge that the information they supply to the Commission as regards the transposition of directives in national law ‘must be clear and precise’ and ‘must indicate unequivocally the laws, regulations and administrative provisions’, or any other provisions of national law, as well as, where relevant, the jurisprudence of national courts, by means of which the Member States consider that they have satisfied the various requirements imposed on them by the directive (1).

1

In order to improve the quality of information on the transposition of Union directives, where the Commission considers that documents explaining the relationship between the components of a directive and the corresponding parts of national transposition instruments are required, it shall justify on a case by case basis, when submitting the relevant proposals, the need for, and the proportionality of, providing such documents, taking into account, in particular and respectively, the complexity of the directive and of its transposition, as well as the possible additional administrative burden.

In justified cases, Member States undertake to accompany the notification of transposition measures with one or more explanatory documents, which can take the form of correlation tables or other documents serving the same purpose.

---

(1)  See Judgment of the Court of Justice of 16 July 2009 in case C-427/07, point 107 and the case-law cited therein.

1

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

March 8, 2011 

d0228 

Order 

 

March 8, 2011 

141781(60) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 141781 

 COA: 287724 

Oakland CC: 91-106220-FC 

RODNEY O. HARRIS, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s December 20, 

2010 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously.
#### WAYLAND HENRY CAVINESS, Plaintiff v. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS, Defendant

No. 254A82

(Filed 5 October 1982)

Appeal by defendant pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7A-30(2) from a decision of the Court of Appeals reversing an order of the Industrial Commission entered 19 January 1981. The opinion of the Court of Appeals by *Judge Becton,*with *Judge Hill*concurring and *Judge Hedrick*dissenting, is reported in 56 N.C. App. 542, 289 S.E. 2d 853 (1982).

*Rufus L. Edmisten, Attorney General, by Ralf F. Haskell and Elisha H. Bunting, Jr., Assistant Attorneys General, for appellant.*

*Ottway Burton for appellee.*

PER CURIAM.

The facts of this case are adequately stated in the majority opinion of the Court of Appeals. We conclude that the rationale in Judge Hedrick’s dissenting opinion is an accurate statement of the law as it applies to this case. We adopt the dissenting opinion, and the opinion of the Court of Appeals is reversed and this case is remanded to the Court of Appeals with directions that it enter an order affirming the order of the Industrial Commission.

Reversed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          22,879
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                28,189
<PP&E>                                       9,536,147
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,819,788
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,229,512
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,036,229
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     9,839,954
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,229,512
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                84,106
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             104,679
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (194,499)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (84,106)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (194,499)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.02)
        

</TABLE>
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19A0310. VINCENT CRAWFORD v. THE STATE.

Following a bench trial, the trial court found Vincent Crawford guilty of

driving under the influence of alcohol (“DUI”), driving with an unlawful alcohol

concentration (which the court merged with the DUI conviction), and speeding. 

Crawford appeals from his judgment of conviction, contending that the trial court

erred when it denied hismotion to suppress all evidence obtained following the traffic

stop that led to his arrest. In his motion to suppress, Crawford argued, in relevant

part, that Georgia’s implied consent statute, OCGA § 40-5-67.1 (b) (2), is

unconstitutional on its face and as applied in this case.

The Supreme Court “has exclusive jurisdiction over all cases involving

construction of the Constitution of the State of Georgia and of the United States and

all casesin which the constitutionality of a law, ordinance, or constitutional provision

has been called into question.” Atlanta Independent School System v. Lane, 266 Ga.

657, 657 (1) (469 SE2d 22) (1996) (citing Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par.

II (1)). Because the trial court rejected Crawford’s challenge to the constitutionality

of OCGA § 40-5-67.1 (b) (2) in this case, it appears that jurisdiction over this appeal

may lie in the Supreme Court. As the Supreme Court has the ultimate responsibility

for determining appellate jurisdiction, see Saxton v. Coastal Dialysis & Med. Clinic,

September 21, 2018
Inc., 267 Ga. 177, 178 (476 SE2d 587) (1996), this appeal is herebyTRANSFERRED

to the Supreme Court for disposition.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

09/21/2018
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 1-5 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 1 of 5
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 1-5 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 2 of 5
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 1-5 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 3 of 5
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 1-5 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 4 of 5
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 1-5 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 5 of 5
#### Jacob L. Frankel, Respondent, *v.*Abraham D. Feldstein et al., Doing Business under the Firm Name of Feldstein Bros. & Co., Appellants.

*Frankel*v. *Feldstein, 172*App. Div. 907, affirmed.

(Submitted October 25, 1918;

decided November 12, 1918.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered January 31, 1916, *unanimously*affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the *673court at a Trial Term, a jury having been waived. Plaintiff entered into a contract with one Parson “ to employ him for one year as a traveling salesman and to pay him as compensation forty per cent -of the net profits of all business he produced.” It was provided that plaintiff should advance to Parson, each week, a sum of money, the same to be charged against his share of the profits. It was further provided that within four months after the expiration of the agreement there should be an accounting between the parties, and that thereupon Parson should be paid whatever was due him. In the event, however, that the amount advanced to him for traveling expenses and drawing account was in excess of the sum to which he would be entitled as his share of the profits, he was to repay such excess to the plaintiff. Before entering into: this agreement plaintiff required Parson to provide security for the repayment of any such excess. Accordingly he procured defendants, who covenanted and agreed to pay to the plaintiff the sum, if any, which may be found due and owing to him upon the accounting mentioned in default of payment of such sum by " Parson. The agreement was thereafter terminated. Parson, however, refused to voluntarily account, and an action was brought in the Supreme Court which resulted in a recovery in favor of the plaintiff. Execution was issued and returned wholly unsatisfied, and the plaintiff now seeks to recover from the sureties.' The defendants interpose two separate defenses. The first is that the plaintiff unreasonably and improperly failed to have a true and final accounting with Parson within four months after the expiration of the agreement, and, therefore, the defendants are discharged and released from any liability to the plaintiff. The second defense is that the contract with the defendants is a guaranty of collection and not of payment, and that the plaintiff unreasonably neglected to take the proper steps for the collection of the sum due from Parson, thereby discharging the defendant.

*674
      *Joseph L. Frieder*for appellants.

*James Garfield Moses*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Chase, Collin, Cuddeback and Hogan, JJ. Not sitting: McLaughlin, J. Absent: Crane, J.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 203 (Monday, October 22, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 59539]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-5193]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Notice 
of Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5. U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of 
the National Children's Study Advisory Committee.
    The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to 
space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special 
assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable 
accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in 
advance of the meeting.

    Name of Committee: National Children's Study Advisory Committee.
    Date: November 7-8, 2007.
    Time: 9 a.m. to 2 p.m.
    Agenda: Topics to be discussed: Reports from the NICHD Director 
and Children's Study Program Director; Issues involving the 
implementation of the Study; a report of the NCSAC Community 
Engagement Subcommittee and full discussion of the issues.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Building 31, 31 Center 
Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.
    Contact Person: Kate Costella, Executive Secretary, National 
Children's Study, National Institute of Child Health and Human 
Development, NIH, 6100 Executive Blvd., Room 5C01, Bethesda, MD 
20892, (301) 594-8625, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a7c4c8d4d3c2cbccc6e7cac6cecb89c9cecf89c0c8d1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="41222e3235242d2a20012c20282d6f2f28296f262e37">[email protected]</span></a>.
    This meeting is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to timing limitations imposed by administrative matters.
    Any interested person may file written comments with the 
committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed 
on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, 
telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional 
affiliation of the interested person.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, 
Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 
93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, 
Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS).

    Dated: October 12, 2007.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-5193 Filed 10-19-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### STATE v. FRY

No. 38.

Case below: 13 N.C. App. 39.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 9 February 1972. Appeal dismissed ex mero motu for lack of substantial constitutional question 9 February 1972.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**STATEMENT OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**OF KNOLOGY, INC.**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

The undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as the principal financial officer of Knology, Inc. (the“Company”) that, to his knowledge, this annual report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (this “Report”), fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

Dated: March 15, 2011 

This exhibitshall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that Section, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by reference in any filings under theSecurities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, whether made before or after the date hereof and irrespective of any general incorporation language in any filings.