alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 191.34 Certificate of delivery required. ( a ) *Direct identification; purpose; when required.* If the exported or destroyed merchandise claimed for drawback under 19 U.S.C. 1313(j)(1) was not imported by the exporter or destroyer, a properly executed certificate of delivery must be prepared by the importer and each intermediate party. Each such transfer of the merchandise must be documented by its own certificate of delivery. ( 1 ) *Completion.* The certificate of delivery shall be completed as provided in § 191.10 of this part. Each party must also certify on the certificate of delivery that the party did not use the transferred merchandise (see § 191.31(c) of this part).
( 2 ) *Retention; submission to Customs.* The certificate of delivery shall be retained by the party to whom the merchandise or article covered by the certificate was delivered. Customs may request the certificate from the claimant for the drawback claim based upon the certificate (see §§ 191.51, 191.52). If the certificate is requested by Customs, but is not provided by the claimant, the part of the drawback claim dependent on that certificate will be denied.
( b ) *Substitution.* For purposes of substitution unused merchandise drawback, 19 U.S.C. 1313(j)(2), if the importer, or a party who received imported merchandise and a certificate of delivery for that imported merchandise, directly or indirectly, from the importer, transfers to another party imported merchandise, duty-paid merchandise, commercially interchangeable merchandise, or any combination thereof, the transferor shall prepare and issue in favor of such party a certificate of delivery covering the transferred merchandise. The certificate of delivery must expressly state that it is prepared pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1313(j)(2). Merchandise so transferred for which drawback is allowed under 19 U.S.C. 1313(j)(2) may not be designated for any other drawback purposes. Each transfer, whether of the imported merchandise or of imported merchandise, duty-paid merchandise, commercially interchangeable merchandise, or any combination thereof, must be documented by its own certificate of delivery. Certificates of delivery under this paragraph are subject to the provisions for completion and retention of certificates of delivery in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section.
( c ) *Warehouse transfer and withdrawals.* The person in whose name merchandise is withdrawn from a bonded warehouse shall be considered the importer for drawback purposes. No certificate of delivery need be prepared covering prior transfers of merchandise while in a bonded warehouse, because such transfers will be recorded in the warehouse entry (see § 144.22 of this chapter).
NRC NEWS U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 Office of Public Affairs Telephone 301/415-820

 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov

 Web Site: www.nrc.gov

No. 03-069 May 28, 2003

NRC TO HOLD PUBLIC MEETING JUNE 5 ON REACTOR VESSEL

PENETRATION LEAKAGE AT SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT

Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with the South Texas Project Nuclear

Operating Company on June 5 in Rockville, Md., to discuss the results and analysis from nondestructive examination of leakage at the bottom of the reactor vessel in STP Unit 1.

The meeting will be held in Room T-2B3 at 11545 Rockville Pike, from 8:30 a.m. until 2

p.m. Meeting topics will also include the situation’s current status, progress on determining the

leakage’s root cause, and repair plans. Discussion of proprietary information may close portions

of the meeting to the public, but NRC staff will be available for public comment or questions

before the meeting adjourns.

To pre-register, request more information or inquire about schedule changes, contact

Mohan Thadani at 301/415-1476.

###
##### 



EXHIBIT 10.2
 GENERAL GROWTH PROPERTIES, INC.
EMPLOYEE RESTRICTED STOCK AWARD AGREEMENT
    Award of Shares
 Rights of Stockholder
 Restrictions on Transfer transfer




---



##### 



Lapse of Restrictions
    Transferability
 Adjustment Provisions
 Taxes
 -2-




---



##### 



Registration
 Rights of Employee
 Construction
 Successors
 Entire Agreement; Modification
 Capitalized Terms; Headings; Pronouns; Governing Law
 Notices
 (1) If to the Company:
    
    General Growth Properties, Inc.110 North Wacker DriveChicago, Illinois 60606
 -3-




---



##### 



(2) If to Employee:
    
    <Name>c/o General Growth Properties, Inc.110 North Wacker DriveChicago, Illinois 60606
 Severability
 Counterpart Execution
 
 GENERAL GROWTH PROPERTIES, INC.By:John BucksbaumChief Executive OfficerEMPLOYEE<Name>
 -4-
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 801 Warrenville Road

 Lisle IL 60532

 Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov

No. III-02-006 March 25, 2002

CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663 E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

NRC TO MEET WITH DETROIT EDISON CO. MARCH 28 TO DISCUSS 

FERMI 2 NUCLEAR POWER PLANT PERFORMANCE

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with representatives of Detroit Edison

Company in Monroe, Michigan, on Thursday, March 28, to discuss the results of the agency's annual

assessment of safety performance at the Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant. The facility is located near

Monroe.

The meeting, which will be the open to the public for observation, is scheduled to begin at 2

p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Monroe City Hall, 120 East 1st Street, Monroe. Before the

meeting is concluded, NRC officials will answer questions from members of the public.

The performance period to be discussed is April 1 through December 31 of last year.

A letter sent from the NRC Region III office to Detroit Edison Company addresses plant

performance during the period and will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is available on

the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/ferm_2001q4.pdf

Current performance information for Fermi 2 is available on the NRC web site at:

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/FERM2/ferm2_chart.html

# # #
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification of
Principal Financial Officer
Pursuant to U.S.C. Section 1350
As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Charles I.
Leone,  Acting Chief Financial Officer of U.S. Wireless Data, Inc., hereby certify,  to
my knowledge,  that the quarterly  report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31,
2004 of U.S.  Wireless  Data,  Inc. (the Form  10-QSB)  fully complies with
the  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 and
the information  contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly  presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of U.S. Wireless Data, Inc.

|Dated:    January 26, 2005
|--------------------------
|                          

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kellis Dion JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kellis Dion Jackson, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 02-6153, 02-6154.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 16, 2002.

Decided May 23, 2002.

Kellis Dion Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Paul J. McNulty, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

*99PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated appeals, Kellis Dion Jackson seeks to appeal from the district court’s order construing his motion for a writ of habeas corpus as one filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001), and denying it. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals on the reasoning of the district court. *United States v. Jackson,*Nos. CR-87-38-A; CR-87-85-A; CA-01-1563-AM; CA-02-139-AM (E.D.Va. Dec. 12, 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.*
#### Peggy Equities Corp., Respondent, v. Benjamin J. Leavin et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants

Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Callahan and Van Voorhis, JJ. [See 278 App. Div. 909.]
§ 190.72 Proof of exportation. ( a ) *Required export data.* Proof of exportation of articles for drawback purposes must establish fully the date and fact of exportation and the identity of the exporter by providing the following summary data as part of a complete claim (*see* § 190.51) (in addition to providing prior notice of intent to export if applicable): ( 1 ) Date of export;
( 2 ) Name of exporter;
( 3 ) Description of the goods;
( 4 ) Quantity and unit of measure;
( 5 ) Schedule B number or HTSUS number; and
( 6 ) Country of ultimate destination.
( b ) *Supporting documentary evidence.* The documents for establishing exportation (which may be records kept in the normal course of business) include, but are not limited to: ( 1 ) Records or other documentary evidence of exportation (originals or copies) issued by the exporting carrier, such as a bill of lading, air waybill, freight waybill, Canadian Customs manifest, and/or cargo manifest;
( 2 ) Records from a CBP-approved electronic export system of the United States Government (§ 190.73);
( 3 ) Official postal records (originals or copies) which evidence exportation by mail (§ 190.74);
( 4 ) Notice of lading for supplies on certain vessels or aircraft (§ 190.112); or
( 5 ) Notice of transfer for articles manufactured or produced in the United States which are transferred to a foreign trade zone (§ 190.183).
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION IV

 611 Ryan Plaza Drive - Suite 400

 Arlington TX 76011-8064

No. IV-02-045 October 31, 2002

CONTACT: Roger Hannah E-mail: opa4@nrc.gov

Phone: 817-860-8128

NRC TO HOLD PUBLIC MEETINGS IN MISSISSIPPI

ON THE EARLY SITE PERMIT PROCESS FOR THE GRAND GULF SITE

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will hold two public meetings on November 14,

2002, in Port Gibson, Mississippi, to discuss its review process for an early site permit application

from Entergy Inc. at its Grand Gulf site. Entergy has notified the NRC that it expects to file an

application in June 2003 for one or more new reactors at that site. 

The meetings scheduled for November 14 are designed to provide information on the NRC

Early Site Permit review process, as well as outline future opportunities for public involvement in that

process. Additional information on the early site permit process is on the NRC’s web site at

www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/license-reviews/esp.html . 

The meetings will be held in Port Gibson City Hall, 1005 College Street in Port Gibson, and

parking will be available in the rear of the City Hall Building. The two meetings will be similar with

one in the afternoon at 2:00 and one in the evening at 7:00. In addition, the NRC staff will host an

“open house” beginning one hour before each meeting. During the open house period, individual NRC

staff members will be available for informal discussions about the early site permit process. 

Although only very limited construction activities would be allowed by the NRC under an early

site permit, the permit would allow the applicant to resolve many environmental, site safety and

emergency planning issues before beginning actual construction of a new reactor facility. If the NRC

approves the new reactor site, Entergy could hold or “bank” the Grand Gulf site for up to 20 years

before filing an application with the NRC for approval to begin construction of a new facility.

###
378 P.2d 608

#### John Q. MAESTES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Felicita GURULE and John F. Gurule, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 7111.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Feb. 8, 1963.

*369Montoya & Schwartz, Theodore R. Montoya, Albuquerque, for appellants.'

Matteucci, Gutierrez & Franchim, Albuquerque, for appellee.

MOISE, Justice.

Plaintiff suffered a whiplash injury when the car which he was driving was struck in the rear by an automobile owned by the defendant, John F. Gurule, and being driven by defendant Felicita L. Gurule.

After a trial to the court without a jury the issues were found in favor of plaintiff and damages in the amount of $4,000.00' awarded. The court found that as a proximate result of the negligence of the defendant, Felicita L. Gurule, while driving the family car owned by John F. Gurule, plaintiff was injured, has suffered and will continue to suffer pain, loss of wages, medical expenses and will have to have a discogram and future surgery.

Defendants now admit liability but contend that the finding of need of a discogram and future surgery is not supported by substantial evidence, and that the judgment is excessive by $2,500.00.

Concerning the finding of the need of a discogram and future surgery, it should be sufficient answer to defendant’s contention, that plaintiff produced a doctor who testified that these procedures were indicated and necessary, while the doctor produced by defendants disagreed and thought they were not needed. Under such circumstances, we will not substitute our views *370as to which of the witnesses was to be believed. Conflicts in the evidence on the trial are to be resolved by the trial judge, and when supported by substantial evidence will not be'disturbed on appeal. Peugh v. Clegg, 68 N.M. 355, 362 P.2d 510. It was for the trial judge to pass upon the credibility of the witnesses, and to give their testimony the weight to which it was entitled. Davis v. Hartley, 69 N.M. 91, 364 P.2d 349. There can be no question that the evidence supporting .the finding meets the tests of substantiality laid down by us in Davis v. Plartley, supra.

Even if we concluded that the finding concerning need of a discogram or future surgery were not supported by substantial evidence, we doubt that the award can be described as so excessive as not to withstand the tests heretofore applied when the amount of a judgment is attacked as excessive. See Hall v. Stiles, 57 N.M. 281, 258 P.2d 386; Vivian v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 69 N.M. 6, 363 P.2d 620; Sturgeon v. Clark, 69 N.M. 132, 364 P.2d 757.

Be this as it may, defendants base their claim of excessiveness on the fact that in its award the court included the future medical and surgical treatment costing some $2,-000.00, and resulting pain and suffering and loss of wages. Since we have concluded that the court’s findings in this regard were supported by substantial evidence, it follows that this point must be overruled.

For the reasons stated, the judgment should be affirmed.

It is so ordered.

COMPTON, C. J., and NOBLE, J., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 2 2 - 0739 CHARLES HENRY PINNER, Petitioner and Appellant, v. STATE OF MONTANA, Respondent and Appellee. 

### ORDER Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including March 29 , 202 4 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 20 2024

02/20/2024

Case Number: DA 22-0739
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                            2739
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  2739
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  259100
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          3490
<OTHER-SE>                                      255610
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    259100
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 94954
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    36380
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  58574
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              58574
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     58574
<EPS-BASIC>                                        1<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        1<F1>
<FN>
<F1>Not presented since all shares of common stock are held by
a sole shareholder.
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Minnie Engel, Appellant, against Maurice Finkelstein et al., Constituting the Temporary City Housing Rent Commission of the City of New York, Respondents.

In our opinion there was substantial proof before the commission to warrant the finding that appellant created the hardship which she has urged as her compelling necessity. Under such circumstances the commission’s denial of the application for a certificate of eviction was a proper exercise of its discretion which the courts may not disturb. *(Matter of Gardella v. Ross,*274 App. Div. 889; *Matter of Clemente*v. *Finkelstein,*274 App. Div. 1069; *Matter of Marburg*v. *Cole,*286 N. Y. 202, 208; *Matter of Mounting & Finishing Co.*v. *McGoldrick,*294 N. Y. 104, 108.) Present — Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Sneed and MacCrate, JJ.
#### § 111.34 Undue influence upon Department of Homeland Security employees.

A broker must not influence or attempt to influence the conduct of any representative of the Department of Homeland Security in any matter pending before the Department of Homeland Security or any representative of the Department of Homeland Security by the use of duress or a threat or false accusation, or by the offer of any special inducement or promise of advantage, or by bestowing any gift or favor or other thing of value.
### §59b. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 59b was editorially reclassified as section 6320 of this title.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

FRASERVIEW REMANUFACTURING INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

UNITED STATES, UNITED STATES CUSTOMS 

AND BORDER PROTECTION, CHRISTOPHER 

MAGNUS, Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection,

Defendants-Appellants

______________________

2024-2049

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of International 

Trade in No. 1:22-cv-00244-TMR, Judge Timothy M. Reif.

______________________

O R D E R

Upon consideration of Fraserview Remanufacturing 

Inc.’s and the United States’s joint stipulation of voluntary 

dismissal of this appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b), with each side to bear its own costs,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The appeal is dismissed.

Case: 24-2049 Document: 12 Page: 1 Filed: 10/01/2024
2 FRASERVIEW REMANUFACTURING INC. v. US

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

October 1, 2024

 Date

FOR THE COURT

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: October 1, 2024

Case: 24-2049 Document: 12 Page: 2 Filed: 10/01/2024
#### Louis C. Hart v. Everard B. Hopwood.

Application denied, with ten dollars costs. Order signed. Present—Ingraham, P. J., Clarke, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
#### § 212.23 Comments by other parties.

Any party to the adversary adjudication other than the applicant and the Commission investigative attorney may file comments on an application within 30 days after it is served or on an answer within 15 days after it is served. A commenting party may not participate further in proceedings on the application unless the presiding officer determines that the public interest requires such participation in order to permit full exploration of matters raised in the comments.
### §2105. Authorization of appropriations

There is hereby authorized to be appropriated out of the contingent fund of the Senate for the expenses of the Commission such amount as may be necessary each fiscal year, to be disbursed by the Secretary of the Senate on vouchers signed by the Executive Secretary of the Commission and approved by the Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate: Provided, That no payment shall be made from such appropriation as salary.

(Pub. L. 100–696, title IX, §901(a), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4610; Pub. L. 107–68, title I, §108(b), Nov. 12, 2001, 115 Stat. 569.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was classified to section 188b–4 of former Title 40, prior to the enactment of Title 40, Public Buildings, Property, and Works, by Pub. L. 107–217, §1, Aug. 21, 2002, 116 Stat. 1062.

Section is based on section 5 of Senate Resolution No. 382, Ninetieth Congress, Oct. 1, 1968, which was enacted into permanent law by Pub. L. 100–696.

#### Amendments

2001—Pub. L. 107–68 substituted "such amount as may be necessary each fiscal year," for "the sum of $15,000 each fiscal year," and "the Executive Secretary of the Commission and approved by the Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate" for "the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Commission".

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

#### Effective Date of 2001 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 107–68 applicable to fiscal year 2002 and all succeeding fiscal years, see section 108(c) of Pub. L. 107–68, set out as a note under section 2103 of this title.