alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Before the First Division,

September 22, 1966

No. P66/224. —

#### M. Hohner, Inc. *v.*United States, protest 65/9230 (New York).

Oliver, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of chord organs and parts thereof similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Excelsior*Accordions, *Inc.*v. *United States*(48 Cust. Ct. 148, C.D. 2328), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 59210.

protest 230067-K.

#### Inter-Maritime Forwarding Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Plaintiff’s application for rehearing granted.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF 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 this Amendment No. 2 of the Annual Report of Forbes Energy Services Ltd. filed on Form 10-K/A (the“Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John E. Crisp, Chief Executive Officer and President 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, to my knowledge, 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 Company. 

 

Date:January 24, 2011 

 
Ex. 32.1– Page 1
Case 3:05-cv-05637-RJB Document 37 Filed 08/21/06 Page 1 of 3
Case 3:05-cv-05637-RJB Document 37 Filed 08/21/06 Page 2 of 3
Case 3:05-cv-05637-RJB Document 37 Filed 08/21/06 Page 3 of 3
Before the Third Division,

December 6, 1965

No. 69667.

#### Genesco Import Company *v.*United States,

protests 64/10411, etc. (New York).

*502Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise was manufactured in the United States and returned to the United States from abroad without having been advanced in value or improved in condition and that the applicable customs regulations have now been complied with, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained. *Bertrand, Freres, Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(47 Cust. Ct. 165, C.D. 2296), followed.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, James D. Palm, Chief Executive Officer of Gulfport Energy Corporation (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to the best of my knowledge:



|(1) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13 (a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Dated: May 9, 2011



/s/ James D. PalmJames D. PalmChief Executive Officer


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.
|                                                                         |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                         |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|                                                                    | 2014 |   | 2013 |   | 2012 |   | 2011 |   | 2010 |
|                                                                    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Profit                                                                  | $ | 535 |  |   | $ | 513 |  |   | $ | 428 |  |   | $ | 374 |  |   | $ | 278 |  |
|                                                                    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Add:                                                                    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Provision for income taxes                                              | 209 |  |   | 167 |  |   | 145 |  |   | 109 |  |   | 40 |  |
|                                                                    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Profit before income taxes                                              | $ | 744 |  |   | $ | 680 |  |   | $ | 573 |  |   | $ | 483 |  |   | $ | 318 |  |
|                                                                    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Fixed charges:                                                          |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Interest expense                                                        | $ | 631 |  |   | $ | 734 |  |   | $ | 801 |  |   | $ | 827 |  |   | $ | 917 |  |
| Rentals at computed interest*                                           | 6 |  |   | 6 |  |   | 6 |  |   | 5 |  |   | 6 |  |
|                                                                    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Total fixed charges                                                     | $ | 637 |  |   | $ | 740 |  |   | $ | 807 |  |   | $ | 832 |  |   | $ | 923 |  |
|                                                                    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Profit before income taxes plus fixed charges                           | $ | 1,381 |  |   | $ | 1,420 |  |   | $ | 1,380 |  |   | $ | 1,315 |  |   | $ | 1,241 |  |
|                                                                    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Ratio of profit before income taxes plus fixed charges to fixed charges | 2.17 |  |   | 1.92 |  |   | 1.71 |  |   | 1.58 |  |   | 1.34 |  |
|                                                                    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
No. 63819.

protests 252114-K, etc. (New York).

#### General Chain & Belt Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of extractors or parts thereof in chief value of metal the same in all material respects as those the subject of *General Chain & Belt Co.*v. *United States*(40 Cust. Ct. 5, C.D. 1948), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Case No. 12,924.

#### SKINNER v. McCAFFREY.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 193.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Dec. Term, 1819.

Jury — Fees—Jurisdictional Amount.

If the verdict be below the jurisdiction of the court, the jury is not entitled to the fee of twelve shillings.

[Cited in Hellrigle v. Dulaney, Case No. 6,343.]

In an action of assumpsit, the jury brought in a verdict for thirteen dollars. This court has not jurisdiction in cases under twenty dollars, and therefore could not render a judgment. It became a question whether a jury was entitled to the fee of twelve shillings.

THE COURT

refused to order either party to pay the fee.
From: tonyluna@alum.mit.edu

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:22:48 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,

Antonio Luna

,
From: dfarleyii@juno.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:26:11 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) - the

killing of an unborn child.

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. May God give you His grace to do the right thing.

Sincerely,

Donald Farley II

Springfield, MA 01107
No. 65986.

#### Sniafibres Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 61/7346 (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of nylon filaments similar in use to thrown silk not more advanced than singles, tram, or organzine and following the principles set forth in *United States*v. *Steinberg Bros.*(47 C.C.P.A. 47, C.A.D. 727), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: mariegregor@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:02:16 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,

Marie Gregor

Rose Hill, KS 67133
Exhibit 10.11


 


CONVERSION AGREEMENT


 


THIS
AGREEMENT, made effective August 1, 2017 (the “Effective Date”), between AVRA Medical Robotics Inc., a Florida
corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “Company”), and Albert Christian Schauer, residing at 6455 N 39th
Street, Augusta, Michigan 49012, USA (hereinafter referred to as the “Employee”).


 


WHEREAS,
the Company wishes to convert payments due to the Employee per the Employment Agreement dated August 1, 2016 into Company shares
on the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, and the Employee wishes to accept such conversion;


 


NOW
THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants of each of the parties given to the other and for other good and valuable consideration,
the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:


 


		a)	From August 1, 2017 through August 1, 2018 the Employee
agrees that all cash payments due to the Employee per the Employment Agreement dated August 1, 2016, will be paid in Company restricted
common shares using a share price of $2.00. The Company shall issue these shares to the Employee as soon as they are due and as
soon as is feasible.



 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF.
the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the 1st day of August 2017.


 





	AVRA Medical Robotics Inc.	 
	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ Barry F. Cohen	 
	 	Barry F. Cohen, CEO	 
	 	 	 
	/s/ A. Christian Schauer	 
	A. Christian Schauer
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

In re:

McGINN FAMILY LAND TRUST,

 Debtor.

 CASE NO. C05-1604JLR

Bankruptcy No. 04-14134

ORDER 

This case is hereby transferred to the Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez as related to 

C05-1570RSM. All future pleadings shall bear the cause number C05-1604RSM.

Dated this 26th day of September, 2005.

A JAMES L. ROBART

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01604-RSM Document 5 Filed 09/27/2005 Page 1 of 1

In Re: McGinn Family Land Trust Doc. 5

Dockets.Justia.com
No. 68429.

protests 60/822,, etc. (New York).

#### Polk’s Model Craft Hobbies, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *Polk’s Model Craft Hobbies, Inc., et al.*(47 CCPA 137, C.A.D. 746), the items marked “A,” stipulated to consist of HO gauge railroad accessories, were held dutiable at the appropriate rate, depending upon the date of entry, under the provision in paragraph 397, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 51802), or by the Sixth Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 54108), for manufactures in chief value of base metal. The items marked “B,” stipulated to consist of locomotives or other electrical articles, were held dutiable at 13% percent under the provision in paragraph 353, as modified by the Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 52739), for metal articles having as an essential feature an electrical element or device, as claimed.
Case 2:05-cv-01536-RSL Document 19 Filed 08/25/06 Page 1 of 1
From: cdcraig@cableone.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:40:48 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,

Carl Craig

Independence, KS 67301
No. 69219.

#### Camera Specialty Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 62/17822 (New York).

*382Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise, described on the invoice as “ISOO-MAT ‘LM’ PI. 9/50 mm with exposure meter,” consists of an interchangeable mounted photographic lens and a detachable light meter, each of which is a separate and distinct article, and that the light meter contains a light sensitive unit which is an essential electrical feature, without which the meter will not operate, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W.D. OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

JARED C BECKMAN,

Defendant.

Case No. CR05-5783FDB

INITIAL ORDER RE:

ALLEGATIONS OF

VIOLATION OF

CONDITIONS OF

SUPERVISION

THIS MATTER comes on for an initial hearing on the Petition of the United States Probation

Office alleging that the defendant has violated the conditions of supervision.

The plaintiff appears through Assistant United States Attorney, GREG GRUBER.

The defendant appears personally and represented by counsel, RUSSELL LEONARD.

The U.S. Probation Office has filed a petition alleging violations of the terms and conditions of

 supervision, and the defendant has been advised of the allegation(s).

The court finds probable cause with regard to the allegation(s) and schedules a hearing on the

 petition to be held at the time and date below set forth before Judge FRANKLIN D BURGESS:

Date of hearing: NOVEMBER 7, 2007

Time of hearing: 10:00 A.M.

 IT IS ORDERED that the defendant:

( ) Be released on an appearance bond, subject to the terms and conditions set forth thereon.

(X) Be detained for failing to show that he/she will not flee or pose a danger to any other person

 or the community pursuant to CrR 32.1(a)(1), and CrR 46(c), to be delivered as ordered

 by the court for further proceedings.

The clerks shall direct copies of this order to counsel for the United States, to counsel for the

defendant, the United States Marshal and to the United States Probation Office and/or Pretrial Services

Office.

November 1, 2007.

 s/ Karen L Strombom 

Karen L. Strombom, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cr-05783-FDB Document 29 Filed 11/01/07 Page 1 of 1
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. AP-76,393

EX PARTE ERIC LOFTON, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. F04-15033-R IN THE 265 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM DALLAS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of indecency with

a child and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment. 

Applicant contends that his appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance because he did

not file a brief on his behalf. The trial court has determined that trial counsel was ineffective and that

counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced Applicant by denying him a meaningful appeal. The

State agrees. We find that counsel was ineffective and Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file
2

an out-of-time appeal of the judgment of conviction in Case No. F04-15033-R from the 265th

Judicial District Court of Dallas County. Applicant is ordered returned to that time at which he may

give a written notice of appeal so that he may then, with the aid of counsel, obtain a meaningful

appeal. All time limits shall be calculated as if the sentence had been imposed on the date on which

the mandate of this Court issues. We hold that, should Applicant desire to prosecute an appeal, he

must take affirmative steps to file a written notice of appeal in the trial court within 30 days after the

mandate of this Court issues.

Delivered: August 25, 2010

Do Not Publish
Before the Second Division,

January 15, 1969

No. P69/27.

protests 66/62299, etc. (Los Angeles).

#### TAP Equipment Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of parts of D-2 and D-4 diesel engines which are parts of agricultural tractors similar in all material respects to those the subject of *TAP Equipment Co., dba Thrifty Equipment Co.*v. *United States*(58 Cust. Ct. 559, C.D. 3051), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.