alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 66505.

#### Ameln Brothers, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 58/1897 (Boston).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Arnold Sorensin Co., Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(38 Cust. Ct. 199, C.D. 1862), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF FINANCIAL 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 quarterly report of Intelsat Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Jeffrey P. Freimark, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |  |  |                        
|--------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|                      |  | 
|Date: August 14, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/ Jeffrey P. Freimark
|                      |  |  |  | Jeffrey P. Freimark    
|                      |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer
No. 64498.

#### McKesson & Robbins et al. *v.*United States,

protests 731516-G, etc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Bichardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C.C.P.A. 130, C.A.D. 508), and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C.D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
EXHIBIT 23





            Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
                                                     --------


Board of Directors
UCI Medical Affiliates, Inc.
Columbia, South Carolina


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement (No.
333-02943) of UCI Medical Affiliates, Inc. on Form S-8 relating to the
registration of up to 750,000 shares common stock pursuant to its 1994 Incentive
Stock Option Plan of our report dated November 22, 2006, which is included in
UCI Medical Affiliates, Inc.'s, Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
September 30, 2006.



Columbia, South Carolina
November 22, 2006
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  Bedrock
Energy,  Inc. for the year ended  December 31, 2009, I, Herbert T. Sears,  Chief
Financial  Officer,  Treasurer,  Director and  Principal  Accounting  Officer of
Bedrock  Energy,  Inc.,  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 Bedrock Energy,  Inc. for the year ended
     December 31, 2009, 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 Bedrock
     Energy, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2009, fairly presents,  in all
     material  respects,  the  financial  condition and results of operations of
     Bedrock Energy, Inc.


Date:  March 29, 2010


                                     /s/ Herbert T. Sears
                                         -----------------
                                         Herbert T. Sears, Chief Financial
                                         Officer, Treasurer and Director
                                         (Principal Accounting Officer)



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.
No. 59704.

#### Leonard Levin Co. *v.*United States,

protests 185667-K, etc. (Providence).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that the subject of Abstract 59105, the merchandise was held dutiable as follows: (1) The items marked with the letter “A” at 10 percent under the provision in paragraph 1528, as modified, *supra,*for imitation semiprecious stones, faceted, and (2) the items marked with the letter “B” at 30 percent under said paragraph, as modified, *supra,*as imitation semiprecious stones, not faceted.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stewart L. CLOER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-4490.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 15, 2001.

Decided July 10, 2001.

*178Stewart L. Cloer, pro se. Brian Lee Whisler, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlotte, NC, for appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Stewart L. Cloer appeals from his guilty plea conviction to three counts of falsely making and subscribing a tax return under penalty of perjury. We deny Cloer’s claims on appeal for the reasons that follow.

First, we do not find that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. *United States v. Ubakanma,*215 F.3d 421, 424 (4th Cir.2000). Second, we do not address Cloer’s claims that the district court committed sentencing errors as he waived his right to appeal these issues in a valid plea agreement, which was reviewed by the district court in a proper Fed. R.Crim.P. 11 hearing. *United States v. Broughton-Jones,*71 F.3d 1143, 1146 (4th Cir.1995); *United States v. Wessells,*936 F.2d 165, 167-68 (4th Cir.1991). Next, we do not find that the district court committed clear error by denying his numerous claims of prosecutorial misconduct. *United States v. Ellis,*121 F.3d 908, 927 (4th Cir.1997). Finally, we decline to review Cloer’s claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel on direct appeal because the record does not “conclusively” demonstrate that he received such defective counsel. *United States v. Richardson,*195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir.1999), *cert. denied,*528 U.S. 1096, 120 S.Ct. 837, 145 L.Ed.2d 704 (2000).

We deny Cloer’s pending motions for release (bail) and to “Vacate Order of the Clerk and for Immediate Release.” We also deny his motion for oral argument as the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
I,  Andre Benard, the President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Calibert Explorations Ltd.. (the Registrant), certify that; (1)I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Registrant;(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)I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) for the Registrant and have:a)Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Registrant is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b)Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report my 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; andc)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 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and(5)I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of the internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrants auditors and the audit committee of Registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):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; andb)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.  March 17, 2009/s/  Andre BenardBy:Andre BenardPresident, Chief Executive Officerand Chief Financial Officer
No. 58217.

protest 169076-K (Detroit).

#### F. W. Myers & Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of frozen beef lungs similar in all material respects to those the subject of *A. N. Deringer, Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(32 Cust. Ct. 41, C. D. 1578), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Case No. 6,486.

#### In re HILL.

[2 N. B. R. 140 (Quarto, 53).] 1

District Court, N. D. New York.

1868.

Bankruptcy — Contempt—Stay op Proceedings.

The bankrupt act [of 1867 (14 Stat. 517)] does not contemplate a stay of proceedings by injunction on an order to show cause, issued out of a state court, why the bankrupt should not be punished for contempt for his failure to appear for examination on proceedings supplementary to execution.

[Cited in Clark v.' Bininger, 38 How. Pr. 341.]

This was a motion to modify the injunction granted at the time of the filing of the petition restricting further proceedings before the county judge of Erie county on proceedings supplementary to execution. It appeared, that before the petition was filed in this court, the petitioner [Milo W. Hill] had (as alleged) committed a contempt in not appearing before the county judge, and an order had been made for him to show cause why he should not be punished. The injunction having been served upon the county judge, he doubted his right even to punish for contempt committed as alleged.

HALL, District Judge,

said that he had some doubts whether the injunction as granted would stay the proceedings for contempt, but he did not consider that the bankrupt act contemplated a stay of such proceedings, and • that he would grant the order modifying injunction as asked.
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 Atlas Resources Public 18-2008 (A) L.P.
(the "Partnership") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Freddie M. Kotek, Chief Executive Officer of the MGP, certify, 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 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
      Partnership.





By:
            /s/ Freddie M.
      KotekName:
            Freddie
      M. KotekTitle:
            Chief
      Executive Officer of the Managing General PartnerDate:
            March
      30, 2009
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. $26,404 IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY, Defendant, and Birdie Sampson; Homer Sampson, Claimants-Appellants.

No. 00-16400.

D.C. No. CV-99-04564-WHA.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 11, 2001 *.

Decided June 21, 2001.

Before O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Birdie and Homer Sampson appeal the district court’s default judgment ordered against them in the civil forfeiture action. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion the imposition of a sanction for failure to comply with a district court’s discovery order, *see Stars’ Desert Inn Hotel & Country Club, Inc. v. Hwang,*105 F.3d 521, 524 (9th Cir.1997), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by ordering the default judgment because it properly considered all relevant factors before imposing the sanction. *See id.*

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Ronald Goode et al., Appellants, v United Artists Eastern Theatre Corp., Respondent.

[631 NYS2d 892]

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), entered June 17, 1994, which dismissed the complaint. The plaintiffs’ notice of appeal from an order of the same court dated April 11, 1994, is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the judgment *(see,*CPLR 5520 [c]).

*383Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff Ronald Goode, a Suffolk County police officer, was injured when he slipped and fell on some debris while responding to a burglar alarm on the defendant’s premises on a rainy night in October 1986. A jury trial ensued in October 1990. At the close of the plaintiffs’ case, the defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on the basis of the so-called firemen’s rule *(see, Santangelo v State of New York,*71 NY2d 393). The trial court granted the motion. However, on appeal, this Court reversed and granted the plaintiffs a new trial *(see, Goode v United Artists E. Theatre Corp.,*190 AD2d 710). Thereafter, the defendant again moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The defendant argued that a subsequent Court of Appeals decision *(see, Cooper v City of New York,*81 NY2d 584) had rejected the reasoning employed by this Court on the prior appeal. The Supreme Court granted the defendant’s motion, and this appeal ensued.

In our prior decision in this case, we relied upon the separate-and-distinct exception to the so-called firemen’s rule, which states that the *Santangelo*case does not apply when the alleged "failure to maintain the premises in a safe condition was not related to the situation which created the need for the plaintiff’s services as a police officer.” However, since that decision, the Court of Appeals has, on two separate occasions, expressly rejected the separate-and-distinct exception, stating that it is inconsistent with the rationale of the *Santangelo*case *(see, Cooper v City of New York, supra; Zanghi v Niagara Frontier Transp. Commn.,*85 NY2d 423)...............

Since the plaintiff Ronald Goode’s injuries arose out of a particular danger that police officers are expected to assume as part of their duties, the plaintiffs’ action is barred by the so-called firemen’s rule, nothwithstanding the fact that there was no connection between the defendant’s negligence and the incident that gave rise to Ronald Goode’s duty to perform police functions *(see, Cooper v City of New York, supra; Zanghi v Niagara Frontier Transp. Commn., supra; Smith v County of Erie,*210 AD2d 933; *Hoey v Kuchler,*208 AD2d 805; *Cottone v City of New York,*206 AD2d 345). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint. Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Balletta and Hart, JJ., concur.
## Meeting **Log**

In cludes all face
- to - face meetings between EPA personnel and stakeholders following signature of the RFS Renewable Identification Number (RIN) Quality Assurance Program Proposed Rule (78 FR 12158, February 21, 2013)
. Date: 2/27/2013 Location: Ann Arbor , MI and Wash ington, D.C. via video and phone call
- in EPA attendees: John Weihrauch (DC), Mary Manners (Ann Arbor), Michael Prince (Ann Arbor), Brent Williams (Ann Arbor), Jeff Kodish (Denver) , Tony Miller (DC) Stakeholder attend ees and affiliation: Michael Whitney , General Manager, Musket Corporation Ty son Redpath, Russell Group
Topics/issues/agenda: Musket Corporation initiated the meeting to discuss the proposed rule, specificall y the components of QAP A and the proposed exporter provisions.Date: Location:

EPA attendees: Stakeholder attendees and affiliation: Topics/issues/agenda:
Before the Second Division,

December 8, 1964

No. 68928.

#### Buhler Brothers, Inc., and Gehrig Hoban & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 58/13733, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of parts of food preparing machines similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Standard, Milling Co.*v. *United States*(50 Cust. Ct. 53, C.D. 2388), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
H. Res. 296

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

May 15, 2007.

Whereas the term ‘‘eosinophilic disorders’’ is a general term 

used to describe a group of diseases and disorders caused 

by the production of too many white blood cells called 

eosinophils; 

Whereas eosinophilic disorders patients suffer from their immune system attacking their body’s own normal, healthy 

tissue, resulting in inflammation or swelling; 

Whereas an estimated 50,000 people are affected by 

eosinophilic disorders in the United States, many of 

whom remain undiagnosed or misdiagnosed; 

Whereas inflammatory eosinophilic disorders are thought to 

be both allergic and autoimmune diseases, such that the 

body’s immune system, which normally fights infections 

and viruses, mistakes common food proteins and environmental allergens as foreign; 

Whereas eosinophilic disorders cause chronic illness that significantly impacts a person’s quality of life and ability to 

attend school and work, and dramatically alters dietary 

lifestyles; 

Whereas some eosinophilic disorders cause life-threatening 

and sometimes fatal illnesses by causing inflammation of 
2

•HRES 296 EH 

the vital organs, such as the heart, lungs, kidney, and 

gastrointestinal tract; 

Whereas eosinophilic disorders are difficult to diagnose and 

treatment is often delayed, resulting in unnecessary suffering; 

Whereas many patients with eosinophilic disorders often have 

severe long-term disabilities as well as the severe limitations imposed by the disease itself; 

Whereas some eosinophilic disorder patients will suffer permanent irreversible organ damage as a result of delays 

in diagnosis and proper treatment; and 

Whereas the American Partnership For Eosinophilic Disorders has identified the third week of May as an appropriate time to recognize National Eosinophil Awareness 

Week in order to educate communities across the Nation 

about eosinophilic disorders and the need for research 

funding, accurate diagnosis, and effective treatments: 

Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

(1) supports the goals and ideals of National Eosinophil Awareness Week; and 

(2) encourages health care providers and the American Partnership for Eosinophilic Disorders to increase 
3

•HRES 296 EH 

education and awareness regarding eosinophilic disorders. 

Attest:

Clerk.
Before the First Division,

August 24, 1966

No. P66/205. —

#### Polk’s Model Craft Hobbies, Inc. *v.*United States, protests 58/910(B) and 58/10638(A) (New York).

Oliver, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of miniature motors similar in all material respects to those the subject of *James G. Wiley Co., a/c Ungar Electric*Tools, *Inc.*v. *United States*(49 Cust. Ct. 199, Abstract 66961), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
### [ Draft ] 08/09/2013 10:16 am 

### Deletion Docket Index for the GEIGER (C & M OIL) SCD980711279

7.0 REMEDIAL ACTION (RA) Remedial Action Documents 7. 8 1. "Durability and Leachability of Solidified/Stabilized (Monolith) Wastes, Geiger (C&M Oil) Site, Hollywood, Charleston County, South Carolina," Black and Veatch. (January 25, 2013) 2. "Final Close Out Report for the Geiger (C&M Oil) Site, Rantowles, South Carolina," USEPA. (August 08, 2013) 8.0 SITE CLOSEOUT Correspondence 8. 1 1. Letter from Catherine Templeton, SCDHEC to Franklin Hill, USEPA. Subject: State of South Carolina Concurrence on National Priority List Deletion of Geiger (C&M) Oil. (July 10, 2013) Long Term Response 8. 6 1. "Third Five Year Review Report for Geiger (C&M Oil) Site, Rantowles, Charleston County, South Carolina," E2, Inc. (April 22, 2009)
From: cdlvsjc@msn.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:27:54 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,

Christina Dickinson

Ontario, CA 91761