alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(R.D. 11493)

#### Elof Hansson, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 731379-1/3.

(Decided February 27, 1968)

*Sliwp, Bolter & Hutchison*for tbe plaintiff.

*Edwin L. Weisl, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for tbe defendant.

Rao, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> _ IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the undersigned, subject to the approval of the Court:

> 1. That the subject merchandise consists of hardboard exported from Sweden as to which the Secretary of the Treasury issued a finding of dumping, published in 89 TD 197, TD 53567, made pursuant to the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C., 160, et seq.).

> 2. That pursuant to Section 168 of said Antidumping Act, the appraiser reported the purchase price (Sec. 162) and the foreign market value (Sec. 164) as to the merchandise listed on Schedule A attached hereto and made a part hereof.

> 3. That pursuant to Sections 500 and 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, the appraiser appraised all of the merchandise in the appeals for appraisement enumerated on Schedule A for regular duty purposes.

> 4. That the plaintiff duly filed appeals for reappraisement as to the values referred to in the above paragraphs Nos. 2 and 3.

> 5. That at the time relevant herein the purchase price and the foreign market value under the said Antidumping Act are as specified in the aforesaid Schedule A attached hereto.

> 6. That as to all other items of merchandise not identified on Schedule A, the appraiser’s reports of purchase price and of foreign market value are correct.

> *7897. That the appraiser’s finding's of value under the provisions of Section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1980 as amended, are correct.

> 8. That said appeals are submitted for decision upon this stipulation and said Schedule A.

Upon the agreed facts, I find foreign market value, as defined in section 164 of the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C. § 164), for the merchandise described in schedule A, annexed to this decision and made a part hereof, and the purchase price thereof, within section 162 of said act (19 U.S.C. § 162), to be as indicated in said schedule. As to all other items of merchandise not identified in schedule A, I find the foreign market values and purchase prices to be as reported by the appraiser. In all other respects, the values of all merchandise are as returned 'by the appraiser.

Judgment will he entered accordingly.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION


<PAGE>



                                  Exhibit 32.2



                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       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  accompanying  annual  report on Form 10-K of  Gulfstar
Energy  Corporation  for the year ended December 31, 2010, I, Stephen J. Warner,
Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer, Director and Principal Accounting Officer of
Gulfstar Energy Corporation,  hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted  pursuant to Section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  to my
knowledge, that:

a)            such annual report on Form 10-K of Gulfstar Energy Corporation for
              the  year  ended  December  31,  2010,  fully  complies  with  the
              requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange
              Act of 1934; and

b)            the  information  contained in such annual  report on Form 10-K of
              Gulfstar Energy  Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2010,
              fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
              and results of operations of Gulfstar Energy Corporation


Date: April 22, 2011


                                                   By:  /s/ Stephen Warner
                                                        ------------------
                                                        Stephen Warner




This  certification  accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except 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 Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
From: finelyhitched@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:39:28 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Ken Hitch

Brentwood, CA 94513
**Exhibit 99.10**

 

**CONSENT OF PASCAL HAMELIN**

 

I, Pascal Hamelin, hereby consent to the references to, and the use of any information derived from, the technical report titled “Technical Report on the Bachelor Lake Gold Project Prepared for Metanor Resources” dated February 17, 2011 (the “Report”) in the annual report on Form 40-F of Sandstorm Gold, Ltd. for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012 and any amendments thereto (the “Annual Report”) being filed with United States Securities and Exchange Commission, which Annual Report incorporates by reference and attaches as an exhibit the Sandstorm Gold Ltd. Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2012 which refers to information contained in the Report.

 

I also consent to the use of my name, including as an expert or “qualified person,” in connection with the Annual Report.

 

Date: February 13, 2013

 
|   | /s/ Pascal Hamelin                    |
|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   | Name:  Pascal   Hamelin, P. Eng. |
|   | Title: Vice President, Operations     |

 

1

----
### NUMBER 13
- 1 3
- 00 5 70
- CV 

## COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI
- EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS , A ppellant ,

v.
VIRGINIA CANAS , A ppellee

.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Benavides, Perkes, and Longoria Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam This appeal was abated by this Court on December 2, 2014 , and the parties were
ordered to mediation. This cause is now before the Court on the parties’ amended joint motion to dismiss the appeal on grounds the parties have reached an agreement to compromise and settle their differences. The parties request that this Court dismiss the appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is hereby REINSTATED

.2

The Court, having considered the documents on file and the amended joint motion
to dismiss, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 42.1(a). The joint motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is hereby DISMISSED. In accordance with the agreement of the parties, costs are taxed again st the party incurring same. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(d ). Having dismissed the appeal at the parties’ request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue
forthwith.
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed the 29th day of January , 201 5

.
From: BERTRIVERS@HOTMAIL.COM

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:09:58 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Bert Rivers

Cross Plains, TN 37049
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: F AA - 2013 - 0690 Directorate Identifier: 2013NM088AD

737 - 32 - 1402 --- 8/6/08

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket 

### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 0 3/05/2008
Exhibit 31.2CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANTTO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002I, Dave Lubbe, Chief Financial Officer of ORBIT/FR, Inc., certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ORBIT/FR, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this quarterly report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterlyreport;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe registrant and have:     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and     c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors:
18

 
     a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date:  May 15, 2007 /s/ Dave Lubbe   Dave Lubbe   Chief Financial Officer  
19
No. 64520.

#### R. Greenspan & Co. *v.*United States,

protest 59/28380 (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of kleenex dispenser covers similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Quon Quon Company*v. *United States*(41 Cust. Ct. 178, C.D. 2038), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the
undersigned officer of the Console Acquisition Corporation
(the "Company"), hereby certify to my knowledge that:

The Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31,
2008 of the Company fully complies, in all material respects,
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the
Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

A signed original 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.


                             /s/ James M. Cassidy
                                 President and Director and
                                 Chief Executivie Officer,
                                 Chief Financial Officer and
                                 Principal Accounting Officer
Date: March 30, 2009
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: In re M elanie D. Horton

Appellate case number: 01

- 2 1

- 0 0 324

- CV

Trial court case number: 20 20

- 39175

Trial court: 80 th District Court of Harris County

Real party in interest, Kafi, Inc., has filed an unopposed motion to extend the time to file its response to relator, Melanie D. Horton’s, petition for writ of mandamus. On July 1, 2021, the Court requested that real party in interest file a response to r elator’s petition for writ of mandamus within twenty days of the date of the order, on or before July 21, 2021. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.4. Real party in interest requests that the time to file its response be extended to August 11, 2021.

The motion incl udes a certificate of conference representing that no party opposes the relief requested by real party in interest. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 10.3(a)(2). The motion is granted

. Real party in interest, Kafi, Inc.’s, response to relator’s petition for writ of
mandamus is due to be filed no later than August 11, 2021

. It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: _____ /s/ Amparo Guerr a

__________  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: ___ July 20, 2021

____
EXHIBIT 10.44.3


                              PanAmSat Corporation
                               One Pickwick Plaza
                          Greenwich, Connecticut 06820






August 31, 1998



Mr. Frederick A. Landman
President and Chief Executive Officer
PanAmSat Corporation
One Pickwick Plaza
Greenwich, Connecticut 06820

                  Re:  Modification of Employment Agreement

Dear Fred:

                  Reference is made to that certain Employment Agreement,  dated
May 15, 1997,  as modified on March 6, 1998 (the  "Agreement"),  between you and
PanAmSat  Corporation.  This letter will  confirm  our mutual  agreement  to the
following amendment:

                  1. In the third line of paragraph 7(d) on page 8:

                     ~ delete the date "November 15, 1998," and

                     ~ substitute in lieu thereof the date
                       "December 31, 1998,"

                  2. In the fourth line of paragraph 7(d) on page 8:

                     ~ delete the number "60," and

                     ~ substitute in lieu thereof the number "30,"

                  Except as amended hereby,  the Agreement remains in full force
and effect.

                  If the foregoing is acceptable  to you,  please  indicate your
agreement to this  amendment by signing and  returning the enclosed copy of this
letter.

                                              Sincerely,



                                              By:    Michael T. Smith
                                                 ------------------------
                                                 Michael T. Smith
                                                 Chairman of the Board



Agreed to:



  Frederick A. Landman
-------------------------
Frederick A. Landman
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Chauncey Alexander HOLLIS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-6289.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 13, 2001.

Decided April 30, 2001.

Chauncey Alexander Hollis, pro se. Paul Alexander Weinman, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, NC, for appellee.

Before LUTTIG and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Chauncey Alexander Hollis appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). Hoi*67lis sought reconsideration of the court’s order granting relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994), and vacating his conviction for using or carrying a firearm in light of *Bailey v. United States,*516 U.S. 137, 116 S.Ct. 501, 133 L.Ed.2d 472 (1995),* on the grounds that the court should have resentenced him on his conspiracy conviction and that counsel provided ineffective assistance at the original sentencing hearing. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion denying Hollis’ Rule 60(b) motion and find no abuse of discretion. *CNF Constructors, Inc. v. Donohoe Constr. Co.,*57 F.3d 395, 401 & n. 2 (4th Cir.1995) (finding that where Rule 60(b) motion seeks reconsideration of legal issues, motion is not authorized by Rule 60(b), and rejection of motion is not an abuse of discretion). Accordingly, we affirm the denial of reconsideration on the reasoning of the district court. *United States v. Hollis,*Nos. CR-91-116; CA-98-305-1 (M.D.N.C. Dec. 13, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*

*

Hollis states in his informal brief filed in this court that he seeks to appeal the order granting § 2241 relief. Although Hollis' informal brief could be construed as a notice of appeal, *Smith v. Barry,*502 U.S. 244, 248, 112 S.Ct. 678, 116 L.Ed.2d 678 (1992), the brief was filed well beyond the applicable appeal period. Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1). Thus, we do not have jurisdiction to review the underlying judgment and express no opinion as to its validity.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE THIRD
QUARTER 1997 10-Q OF INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY PRODUCTS INC. AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000874578
<NAME> INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY PRODUCTS INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-28-1997
<CASH>                                          28,721
<SECURITIES>                                   126,809
<RECEIVABLES>                                   76,346
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    113,025
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               398,981
<PP&E>                                         502,494
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,366,614
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          148,658
<BONDS>                                        288,627
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           999
<OTHER-SE>                                     755,101
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,366,614
<SALES>                                        572,606
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               572,606
<CGS>                                          336,194
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  336,194
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,908
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                111,726
<INCOME-TAX>                                    40,165
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             71,561
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    71,561
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .74
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .74
        

</TABLE>