alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 152
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 152 appear by CBP Dec. No. 16-26, 81 FR 93022, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 152.104 Transaction value of identical merchandise and similar merchandise. ( a ) *General.* The transaction value of identical merchandise, or of similar merchandise, is the transaction value (acceptable as the appraised value under § 152.103 but adjusted under paragraph (e) of this section) of imported merchandise that is— ( 1 ) With respect to the merchandise being appraised, either identical merchandise, or similar merchandise; and
( 2 ) Exported to the United States at or about the time that the merchandise being appraised is exported to the United States.
( b ) *Identical merchandise.* Minor differences in appearance will not preclude otherwise conforming merchandise from being considered “identical”. See § 152.102(d).
( c ) *Similar merchandise.* The quality of the merchandise, its reputation, and the existence of a trademark will be factors considered to determine whether merchandise is “similar”. See § 152.102(i).
( d ) *Commercial level and quantity.* Transaction values determined under this section will be based on sales of identical merchandise, or similar merchandise, at the same commercial level and in substantially the same quantity as the sales of the merchandise being appraised. If no such sale is found, sales of identical merchandise, or similar merchandise, at either a different commercial level or in different quantities, or both, will be used, but adjusted to take account of that difference. Any adjustment made under this section will be based on “sufficient information”. See § 152.102(j). If in applying this section to any merchandise, two or more transaction values for identical merchandise, or for similar merchandise, are determined, the merchandise will be appraised on the basis of the lower or lowest of those values.
( e ) *Adjustments.* ( 1 ) Adjustments for identical merchandise, or similar merchandise, because of different commercial levels or quantities, or both, whether leading to an increase or decrease in the value, will be made only on the basis of sufficient information; e.g., valid price lists containing prices referring to different levels or quantities.
( 2 ) *Interpretative note.* If the imported merchandise being valued consists of a shipment of 10 units and the only identical imported merchandise for which a transaction value exists involved a sale of 500 units, and it is recognized that the seller grants quantity discounts, the required adjustment may be accomplished by resorting to the seller's price list and using that price applicable to a sale of 10 units. This does not require that a sale had to have been made in quantities of 10 as long as the price list has been established as being *bona fide* through sales at other quantities. In the absence of such an objective measure, however, the determination of a customs value under the provisions for transaction value of identical or similar merchandise is not appropriate.
### §60c–6. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 60c–6 was editorially reclassified as section 4536 of this title.
**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 The Macreport.net, Inc. (the "Company")
      on
      Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended November 30, 2005 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, V.
      William Lucchetti, Jr., Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President
      (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Accounting and 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:





(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 result of operations of the Company.








_______ /s/ ___________


V.
      William Lucchetti, Jr.


Chief
      Executive Officer


March
      15,
      2006
Skip to global NPS navigation
Skip to the main content
Skip to the footer section






National Park Service Search Search
This Site
All NPS
 Open
Menu
Close
Menu
Explore This Park
Explore the National Park Service


Exiting nps.gov
  Cancel


Youth & Young Adult Programs





Contact Us
  Get Involved With Programs for Boy Scouts
 Boy Scouts at President's ParkBoy Scouts and NPS staff pose for a group photo at President's Park NPS Photo Participate in the Resource Stewardship Scout Ranger Program Find Parks with Boy Scout Opportunities Get an Eagle Scout Certificate of Recognition
 Last updated: February 8, 2022
 Tools Calendar
Site Index


This Site
All NPS 
  National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior
 Accessibility
Privacy Policy
FOIA
Notices
Contact The National Park Service NPS FAQ
No Fear Act
Disclaimer
Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
USA.gov Facebook
Youtube
Twitter
Instagram
Flickr
#### Emma J. Umbach, Respondent, v. George J. Umbach, Appellant.

No opinion. Present — Close, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Taylor and Lewis, JJ.
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 1:20-cv-23161-DPG

ROBIN VELEZ

Plaintiff,

vs.

NEOCIS, INC., a Foreign Corporation,

Defendant.

__________________________________/

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Plaintiff, ROBIN 

VELEZ (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant, NEOCIS INC. (“Defendant”), by and through their respective 

undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate to the dismissal of the above referenced action with 

prejudice, with each party to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs except as otherwise provided 

for in the parties’ Settlement Agreement. The parties request that the Court enter an Order 

dismissing this case with prejudice.

Respectfully submitted this 21st day of June 2021, 

/s/ Nathaly Saavedra

Nathaly Saavedra, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 118315

PereGonza Law Group, PLLC

1414 NW 107th Avenue, Suite 302

Miami, Florida 33172

Tel: (786) 650-0202

Fax: (786) 650-0200

Email: nathaly@peregonza.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

/s/John R. Byrne

John R. Byrne, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 0126294

LEÓN COSGROVE, LLP

255 Alhambra Circle, 8th Floor

Miami, Florida 33134

Email: jbyrne@leoncosgrove.com

Email: cmanzano@leoncosgrove.com

Counsel for Defendant

Case 1:20-cv-23161-DPG Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/21/2021 Page 1 of 3
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 21st day of June, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing 

document with the Clerk of the Court using the Florida e-Filing Portal Electronic Docketing 

System. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record 

or pro se parties identified on the attached Service List in a manner specified, either via 

transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by Florida’s e-Filing Portal Electronic 

Docketing System or in some other authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not 

authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing.

/s/Nathaly Saavedra

Nathaly Saavedra, Esq. 

Case 1:20-cv-23161-DPG Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/21/2021 Page 2 of 3
3

SERVICE LIST

Email: cmanzano@leoncosgrove.com

Counsel for Defendant

Method of Service ECF Notice

John R. Byrne, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 0126294

LEÓN COSGROVE, LLP

255 Alhambra Circle, 8th Floor

Miami, Florida 33134

Email: jbyrne@leoncosgrove.com

Case 1:20-cv-23161-DPG Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/21/2021 Page 3 of 3
#### §§ 206.162-206.163 [Reserved]
### §123c–1. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 123c–1 was editorially reclassified as section 6619 of this title.
From: jeffrey.hummel@GM.COM

To: Boyd.Rochelle@epamail.epa.gov

Date: 09/23/2010 07:06 AM

Subject: Re: Stack Testing Reporting Spreadsheet Updated with THC tab

This spreadsheet has been significantly revised from the original. With one week left before the due date, 

why are you now asking for detailed data breakdown of the front half and back half of the volatiles and 

semi-volatiles? 

Jeffrey S. Hummel, MS, CHMM

Sr. Environmental Engineer

(812) 279-7271

(812) 279-7367 (Fax)

jeffrey.hummel@gm.com

General Motors LLC

105 GM Drive, Bedford, IN 47421
### §60k. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 60k was editorially reclassified as a note under section 1313 of this title.
**Exhibit
      13.2**




**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 on Form 20-F of Distribución y Servicio
      D&S S.A. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with
      the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Alejandro
      Droste Bertolo ,
      as
      Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, 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 and 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.




By: /s/
      Alejando Droste Bertolo


Name: Alejandro
      Droste Bertolo


Title:
      Chief Financial Officer


Date:
      July 15, 2008




This
      certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except as to the extent required
      by
      the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes
      of
      Section 18 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Editorial Note on Part 141
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 141 appear by CBP Dec. No. 16-26, 81 FR 93019, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 141.92 Waiver of invoice requirements. ( a ) *When waiver may be granted.* CBP may waive production of a required invoice when he is satisfied that either: ( 1 ) The importer cannot by reason of conditions beyond his control furnish a complete and accurate invoice; or
( 2 ) The examination of merchandise, final determination of duties, and collection of statistics can be effected properly without the production of the required invoice.
( b ) *Documents to be filed by importer.* As a condition to the granting of a waiver, the importer shall file the following documents with the entry: ( 1 ) Any invoice or invoices received from the seller or shipper;
( 2 ) A statement pointing out in exact detail any inaccuracies, omissions, or other defects in such invoice or invoices;
( 3 ) An executed pro forma invoice in accordance with § 141.85; and
( 4 ) Any other information required by the Center director for either appraisement or classification of the merchandise, or for statistical purposes.
( c ) *Satisfaction of bond liability.* The liability under the bond on Customs Form 301, containing the bond conditions set forth in § 113.62 of this chapter for the production of a correct invoice shall be deemed satisfied when a waiver has been granted pursuant to this section.
[T.D. 73-175, 38 FR 17447, July 2, 1973, as amended by T.D. 78-53, 43 FR 6070, Feb. 13, 1978; T.D. 79-221, 44 FR 46821, Aug. 9, 1979; T.D. 84-213, 49 FR 41184, Oct. 19, 1984; 49 FR 44867, Nov. 9, 1984; T.D. 93-66, 58 FR 44130, Aug. 19, 1993]
#### James Guy ARNOLD, IV, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charles MARLES, Sheriff; Martin Van Evans, Respondents-Appellees. James Guy Arnold, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Martin Van Evans, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

Nos. 01-8114, 02-6168.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 25, 2002.

Decided May 6, 2002.

James Guy Arnold, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

James Guy Arnold appeals the district court orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petitions in these consolidated cases. We find Arnold’s appeals to be moot. Accordingly, we deny certificates of appealability and dismiss the appeals. Further, we deny Arnold’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
### §§1782 to 1782h. Repealed. Pub. L. 105–220, title I, §199(b)(2), Aug. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 1059

Section 1782, Pub. L. 97–300, title IV, §491, as added Pub. L. 102–367, title IV, §406, Sept. 7, 1992, 106 Stat. 1086, stated purpose of Youth Fair Chance program.

Section 1782a, Pub. L. 97–300, title IV, §492, as added Pub. L. 102–367, title IV, §406, Sept. 7, 1992, 106 Stat. 1086, authorized national program of Youth Fair Chance grants.

Section 1782b, Pub. L. 97–300, title IV, §493, as added Pub. L. 102–367, title IV, §406, Sept. 7, 1992, 106 Stat. 1087, related to applications for grants.

Section 1782c, Pub. L. 97–300, title IV, §494, as added Pub. L. 102–367, title IV, §406, Sept. 7, 1992, 106 Stat. 1089; amended Pub. L. 103–50, ch. V, §502, July 2, 1993, 107 Stat. 254, related to grant agreements.

Section 1782d, Pub. L. 97–300, title IV, §495, as added Pub. L. 102–367, title IV, §406, Sept. 7, 1992, 106 Stat. 1090, related to job guarantees.

Section 1782e, Pub. L. 97–300, title IV, §496, as added Pub. L. 102–367, title IV, §406, Sept. 7, 1992, 106 Stat. 1091, related to payments and Federal share.

Section 1782f, Pub. L. 97–300, title IV, §497, as added Pub. L. 102–367, title IV, §406, Sept. 7, 1992, 106 Stat. 1091, related to reporting procedures.

Section 1782g, Pub. L. 97–300, title IV, §498, as added Pub. L. 102–367, title IV, §406, Sept. 7, 1992, 106 Stat. 1091, related to Federal responsibilities.

Section 1782h, Pub. L. 97–300, title IV, §498A, as added Pub. L. 102–367, title IV, §406, Sept. 7, 1992, 106 Stat. 1092, defined "participating community", "high poverty area", and "target area".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective July 1, 2000, see section 199(c)(2)(B) of Pub. L. 105–220, set out as a note under section 1501 of this title.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ozzie JONES, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-7859.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 26, 2002.

Decided May 23, 2002.

Ozzie Jones, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Ozzie Jones, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying as untimely his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2001). We have reviewed the *93record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *United States v. Jones,*Nos. CR-90-99-H; CA-01-380-5-H (E.D.N.C. filed Aug. 13, 2001; entered Aug. 14, 2001). 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.

*DISMISSED.*
#### HILDAHL, Respondent, v. SEIM, Appellant.

(190 N. W. 782.)

(File No. 5078.

Opinion filed November 28, 1922.)

Brokers — Commission—Jury—Sale by Owner Before Notice of Acceptance by Broker’s Customer Held for Jury.

In a suit for a commission for procuring a purchaser, a direct conflict in the evidence as to acceptance by the broker’s purchaser before notice of a sale- by the owner to another presents a question for the jury.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Minnehaha County; Hon. R. R. FeEEGER, Judge.

Action by Wollert Hildahl against Andrew Seim. From a judgment for plaintiff and from an order denying a new trial, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

*Mundt & Mundt,*of Sioux Falls, for Appellant.

*Parliman & Parliman,*of Sioux Falls, for Respondent.

GATES, R. J.

This is an appeal from a judgment in the circuit court for plaintiff and1 an order denying new trial. The case was begun and tried in the municipal court" of Sioux Falls with the like judgment. The action is for the recovery of a real estate broker’s commission. . Defendant had listed the property in question with plaintiff upon a $200 commission, but at that time *82he notified plaintiff that another person was dickering for it. Plaintiff produced a committee of three, who contemplated -buying the property as a residence for the new president of Augustana 'College. Price and terms were substantially agreed to, but defendant agreed to give the committee until Saturday night to decide whether it would buy. On Saturday morning defendant with his other purchaser appeared before one of the committee. According to one version of the facts defendant was notified that the committee was ready to close the deal before he gave notice that he had1 already sold the property. According' to the other version the acceptance by the committee was not until it h-ad been notified by defendant of the other sale. This was a question for the jury to determine. .'We cannot say that there was not evidence tending to show that plaintiff produced a purchaser ready, able, and willing to take the property at defendant’s terms.

The judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.

Note — Reported in 190 N. W. 782. See American Key-Numbered Digest, Brokers, Key-No. 88(3), 9 C. J. Sec. 129.
#### § 122.164 Transportation to another port for exportation.

If transit air cargo is traveling from the port of arrival to another U.S. port for later exportation, any liquidated damages for shortages or irregular delivery shall be assessed as provided in § 122.163.
§ 122.134 When airline does not have in-bond liquor storeroom. ( a ) *Handling of liquor kits.* An aircraft may land at an airport where the airline involved does not have an authorized in-bond liquor storeroom. When this occurs, the liquor kits, under any supervision found necessary by the port director, may be: ( 1 ) Kept on board the aircraft;
( 2 ) Removed and replaced upon the aircraft; or
( 3 ) Removed and replaced aboard another aircraft.
( b ) *Sealing of kits.* Aircraft liquor kits covered by this section shall remain sealed until departure. Customs officers may remove the seal to check the contents of the liquor kits, but shall reseal the kits as provided in § 122.132(e).
( c ) *Restocking.* Additional amounts of duty-free and tax-free liquor and tobacco obtained in the U.S. shall be laden in a separate container on any aircraft covered by this section. The lading shall be done under any supervision the port director finds necessary. The additional liquor and tobacco shall be shown on separate outward stores lists.
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  U NITED S TATES OFA MERICA ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 01-4027



# 

I NNOCENT A. B OSAH ,

Defendant-Appellant. 

# 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.

(CR-96-426-AW) Submitted: September 28, 2001
Decided: November 9, 2001 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSELJohn O. Iweanoge, LAW OFFICES JOHN O. IWEANOGE, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Stephen M. Schenning, United StatesAttorney, David I. Salem, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION

PER CURIAM: Innocent A. Bosah pled guilty to participating in a scheme to defraud numerous mail order companies in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (1994), and was sentenced to a term of twenty-one months incarceration. He appeals his sentence, contending that the district court abused its discretion when it failed to rule on Bosah’s motion for a departure based on his status as a deportable alien. We dismiss the appeal. Bosah requested a downward departure from the guideline range on the ground that, because he was a deportable alien, he would be held in custody by the Immigration and Naturalization Service afterhe completed his sentence of imprisonment, and would not be permitted to serve the last part of his sentence in a half-way house as other conspirators might be permitted to do. Without commenting onBosah’s departure motion, the court sentenced him within the guideline range to a term of twenty-one months imprisonment. An appeals court does not have jurisdiction to review the districtcourt’s decision not to depart downward unless the district court mistakenly believed that it lacked authority to depart downward. United States v. Bayerle , 898 F.2d 28, 31 (4th Cir. 1990). When the district court is silent as to its reason for not departing, this Court will not infer that the district court believed that it lacked authority to depart. United States v. Bailey , 975 F.2d 1028, 1035 (4th Cir. 1992); see also United States v. Rowen , 73 F.3d 1061, 1063 (10th Cir. 1996) (appeals court will not assume district court’s silence implies that it did not understand its authority to depart when nothing in record suggests lack of understanding). In Bosah’s case, the district court said nothing that would permit the inference that it did not understand its authority to depart downward.We therefore dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.
DISMISSED 2 U NITED S TATES v. B OSAH