alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 67492.

#### V. G. Nahrgang *v.*United States,

protests 303458-K and 307849-K (Detroit).

Opinion by

Lawrence, .T.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of copper rods similar in all material res/pects to those the subject of *H. J. Van Der Ryn, Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(40 Cust. Ct. 90, C.D. 1964), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 203 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         March 1, 2007.
    Resolved,  That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the 
Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved 
into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for 
consideration of the bill (H.R. 800) to amend the National Labor Relations Act 
to establish an efficient system to enable employees to form, join, or assist 
labor organizations, to provide for mandatory injunctions for unfair labor 
practices during organizing efforts, and for other purposes. The first reading 
of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration 
of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. 
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
the Committee on Education and Labor. After general debate the bill shall be 
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to 
consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute 
rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
Education and Labor now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. Notwithstanding clause 11 of 
rule XVIII, no amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order except those printed in the report of the Committee 
on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only 
in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated 
in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time 
specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a 
demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the 
Whole. All points of order against such amendments are waived except those 
arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of consideration of the 
bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House 
with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate 
vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous 
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gavin Tanner, Appellant.

[631 NYS2d 773]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (R. Goldberg, J.), rendered November 16, 1993, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We reject the defendant’s contention that he was denied a fair trial by the court’s refusal to discharge a juror after the court learned that the juror recognized two police officers who testified on behalf of the People. During several inquiries into the matter, the juror stated unequivocally that his acquaintance with the officers, which was through his position as an adminstrator of a hospital, would not affect his judgment in the case *(see, People v Buford,*69 NY2d 290; *People v Sage,*204 AD2d 746; *People v Hill,*167 AD2d 418).

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). Sullivan, J. P., Rosenblatt, Thompson and Ritter, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 184 (Monday, September 25, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 65683]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20642]


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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

[Docket No. 23-05]


Rahal International Inc., Complainant v. Hapag-Lloyd AG, Hapag-
Lloyd (America), LLC, and Hapag-Lloyd USA, LLC, Respondents and Third-
Party Complainants v. Maher Terminals, LLC, GCT New York LP, and GCT 
Bayonne LP, Third-Party Respondents; Notice of Filing of Third-Party 
Complaint; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Maritime Commission.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: On September 8, 2023, the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) 
published a document in the Federal Register of September 15, 2023, 
concerning a third-party complaint filed in Docket No. 23-05. This 
document incorrectly designated Hapag-Lloyd USA, LLC as a Third-Party 
Complainant.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Amy Strauss, Acting Secretary, (202) 
523-5725 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3142545243544550434871575c521f565e47"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="087b6d6b7a6d7c697a71486e656b266f677e">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of September 15, 
2023, on page 63575:
    1. in the first column remove the document title and replace with 
the following: Rahal International Inc., Complainant v. Hapag-Lloyd AG, 
Hapag-Lloyd (America), LLC, and Hapag-Lloyd USA, LLC, Respondents and 
Hapag-Lloyd AG and Hapag-Lloyd (America), LLC, Third-Party Complainants 
v. Maher Terminals, LLC, GCT New York LP, and GCT Bayonne LP, Third-
Party Respondents; Notice of Filing of Third-Party Complaint
    2. in the second column, both times it appears, remove ``Hapag-
Lloyd AG, Hapag-Lloyd (America), LLC, and Hapag-Lloyd USA, LLC'' and 
replace with the following: Hapag-Lloyd AG and Hapag-Lloyd (America), 
LLC
    3. in the second column, remove the following paragraph: Respondent 
and Third-Party Complainant Hapag-Lloyd USA, LLC is a United States 
subsidiary and agent of Hapag-Lloyd AG with its office located in 
Atlanta, Georgia.

Carl Savoy,
Federal Register Alternate Liaison Officer, Federal Maritime 
Commission.
[FR Doc. 2023-20642 Filed 9-22-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-02-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit
32.1





Certification
of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer


Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





I, Lars
Pearl, President and Chief Executive Officer of Aurora Gold Corporation (the
“Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to my knowledge:





1.
            The
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period ended March
      31, 2007 which this certification accompanies 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:  February 13,
      2008
            BY:
            /s/ Lars
      PearlLars
      PearlPresident
      and Chief Executive Officer







This
certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
#### In the Matter of Ricardo R., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 472]

—In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal, as limited by the appellant’s brief, is from so much of an order of disposition of the Family Court, Orange County (Bivona, J.), dated August 1,1994, as placed him in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services for a period of up to one year commencing August 1, 1994, upon a fact-finding order of the same court entered May 23, 1994, made after a hearing, finding that the appellant had committed acts, which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of crim*432inal mischief in the fourth degree and burglary in the second degree.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.

Since the appellant only challenges the portion of the order of disposition which placed him in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services, the appeal is academic, as the period of placement has expired *(see, Matter of Antoine V. B.,*204 AD2d 559, 560; *Matter of Greg W.,*213 AD2d 414). Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
#### Shalom Kinfe ANDEMSKEL, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-60506.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Aug. 18, 2005.

Roy Kevin Petty, Dallas, TX, for Petitioner.

David V. Bernal, Thomas Ward Hussey,' Director, Jamie Marie Dowd, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Anne M. *390Estrada, Dallas, TX, Caryl G. Thompson, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.

Alberto R. Gonzales, Washington, DC, pro se.

Before GARWOOD, JONES and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Shalom Kinfe Andemskel (Andemskel), a citizen of Eritrea, petitions this court to review the judgment of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying her application for asylum. The IJ determined that despite some mostly ambiguous evidence of past persecution, Andemskel failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. In reaching his decision, the IJ relied on evidence that Andemskel remained in Eritrea without meaningful incident for almost two years after the last claimed persecution and that her father and three sisters remain in Eritrea without harm and also evidence of dramatically changed country conditions contained in the record.

Andemskel argues that the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution was not rebutted and that the IJ did not analyze the facts correctly in determining the presumption was rebutted. We disagree. We conclude that the decision is supported by substantial evidence, and the evidence in the record does not compel a contrary conclusion. *Mikhael v. I.N.S.,*115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir.1997); *Gomez-Mejia v. I.N.S.,*56 F.3d 700, 702 (5th Cir.1995).

With regard to the claims requesting withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) raised in her petition before the IJ, Andemskel correctly recognizes that the standards for proving entitlement for withholding of removal and for withholding under the CAT are higher than that for asylum. Because Andemskel has failed to satisfy the lower standard for asylum based on the evidence in this case, she concedes that it necessarily follows that she has failed to satisfy the higher standards for her other two claims.

Andemskel’s petition for review is DENIED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-19-00326-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF T.H.J., C.H.J., J.H.J., and P.H.J., Children

From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018-PA-00096

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE MARTINEZ, AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the order of the trial court is 

AFFIRMED. It is ORDERED that no costs be assessed against appellant in relation to this appeal 

because he qualifies as indigent under TEX. R. APP. P. 20.

SIGNED January 2, 2020.

_____________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION

 

          I, Robert E. Matthiessen, certify that: 

          1.    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of inTEST Corporation; 

          2.    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

          3.    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

          4.    The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

        (a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

        (b)  [Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986]; 

        (c)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

        (d)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and 

          5.    The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors: 

        (a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

        (b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: May 12, 2006/s/ Robert E. Matthiessen
IV 

House Calendar No. 252 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1363 

[Report No. 110–767] 

Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the House amendments to the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 3221) to provide 

needed housing reform and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 22, 2008 

Ms. CASTOR, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; 

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the 

House amendments to the Senate amendment to the 

bill (H.R. 3221) to provide needed housing reform and 

for other purposes. 

1 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it 

2 shall be in order to take from the Speaker’s table the bill 

3 (H.R. 3221) to provide needed housing reform and for 

4 other purposes, with the Senate amendment to the House 

5 amendments to the Senate amendment thereto, and to 

6 consider in the House, without intervention of any point 


erowe on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1363 RH 

1 of order, a motion offered by the chairman of the Com2 mittee on Financial Services or his designee that the 

3 House concur in the Senate amendment to the House 

4 amendment numbered 1 with the amendment printed in 

5 the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 

6 resolution. The Senate amendment and the motion shall 

7 be considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for 

8 two hours, with 80 minutes equally divided and controlled 

9 by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 

10 Committee on Financial Services and 40 minutes equally 

11 divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking mi12 nority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The 

13 previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 

14 motion to its adoption without intervening motion. 

15 SEC. 2. Upon adoption of the motion specified in the 

16 first section of this resolution, the House shall be consid17 ered to have receded from any remaining amendments or 

18 disagreements. 

19 SEC. 3. During consideration of the motion to concur 

20 pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation 

21 of the previous question, the Chair may postpone further 

22 consideration of the motion to such time as may be des23 ignated by the Speaker. 


erowe on PROD1PC71 with BILLS

erowe on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
House Calendar No. 252 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1363 

[Report No. 110

–767] 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the Senate amendneeded housing reform and for other purposes. amendment to the bill (H.R. 3221) to provide ment to the House amendments to the Senate 

JULY 22, 2008 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


erowe on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
From: Sauvageau, Rachelle

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment on Preventative Health Services

Date: Monday, August 15, 2011 1:05:43 PM

To: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Re: Opposition of the proposed definition of “religious employer”

The current definition of religious employer does not provide true conscience protection for

those committed to preserving life. Healthcare plans should not be forced to violate the

moral and religious convictions of providers or employees in order to participate in the

health care system. Requiring such an unacceptable demand threatens both universal access

to health care and religious freedom of conscience. I oppose the definition and ask that it be

language be used that would truly protect private health providers to practice according to

their ethical standards and missions.

Sincerely,

Rachelle Sauvageau

1429 North 11 Street

Fargo ND 58102
No. 799, Misc.

#### Faust *v.*North Carolina.

Petitioner *pro se.*

*T. W. Bruton,*Attorney General of North Carolina, and *Harry W. McGalliard,*Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 64489.

#### M. Pressner & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 59/30753, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of glass ornamental novelties similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 62984, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tynnetta MEDLEY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-6344.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

July 3, 2001.

*59Francis E. Mullen, Mullen *&*Iannarone, P.C., Smithtown, NY, for appellee.

Tynnetta Medley, Brooklyn, NY, pro se.

Present JACOBS, PARKER, and SOTOMAYOR, Circuit Judges.

*SUMMARY ORDER*

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment be AFFIRMED.

Tynnetta Medley, pro se and fee-paid, appeals an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Korman, J.) denying her motion to vacate a default judgment entered against her for failure to pay a student loan.

The September 1999 Complaint requested a judgment in the amount of $2,631.09 plus $1,122.73 interest. Medley failed to answer. On November 24, 1999, the United States moved for a default judgment, which was entered on November 30, 1999. Medley moved to vacate the default judgment on December 1, 1999, conceding that she had been served with the Summons and Complaint but was too busy to answer because of work, school, family and other commitments. Medley offered no defense. By endorsed order dated October 10, 2000, the district court denied Medley’s motion to vacate on the grounds that Medley did not deny the debt and raised no issue warranting vacatur. Medley now appeals from the denial of her motion to vacate the default judgment.

Medley has failed to raise a meritorious defense or any other type of reasonable excuse for failing to respond to the Summons and Complaint served against her. *See*Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(c) (“For good cause shown the court may set aside an entry of default and, if a judgment by default has been entered, may likewise set it aside in accordance with Rule 60(b).”); *Pecarsky v. Galaxiworld.com Ltd.,*249 F.3d 167, 171 (2d Cir.2001) (“When deciding whether to relieve a party from default or default judgment, we consider the willfulness of the default, the existence of a meritorious defense, and the level of prejudice that the non-defaulting party may suffer should relief be granted.”). Medley conceded that she took out the loan and failed to repay it, and that she received the plaintiffs Complaint but was too busy to respond. Medley’s conclusory allegations of fraud on the part of the school she attended do not excuse her nonpayment on the student loan, which was a debt owed to the government, not to the school. *See First Nationwide Bank v. Gelt Funding Corp.,*27 F.3d 763, 771-72 (2d Cir.1994) (relying on *Kadar Corp. v. Milbury,*549 F.2d 230, 233 (1st Cir.1977)). We therefore affirm the district court’s denial of Medley’s motion to vacate the default judgment.

For the reasons set forth above, the judgment is hereby AFFIRMED.
No. 67056.

protests 307673-K, etc. (New York).

#### N. S. Meyer, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of insignia similar in all material respects to those involved in Abstract 66583, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
#### Benjamin Fitch, Respondent, v. Patrick McMahon, Appellant.

Order denying motion to vacate order of arrest affirmed, with costs, with leave to appellant to move to reduce bail. Opinion by

Cullen, J.