alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(R.D. 11522)

#### Geo. S. Bush & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 4566, etc.

(Decided May 16, 1968)

*Glad*<G *Tuttle*for the plaintiffs.

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

LaNdis, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, attached to and made a part of this decision and of the judgment, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the court, as follows:

> 1. That the appeals for reappraisement set forth in Schedule “A” hereto attached and made a part hereof cover merchandise entered or withdrawn from Customs warehouse for consumption after the effective date of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 and was therefore appraised mider Section 402(b) of the Simplification Act of 1956, Public Law 927, 84th Congress, 2nd Session; said merchandise not being identified in the final list published in T.D. 54521.

> 2. That as to the merchandise marked “A” in green ink and initialed GKY by Commodity Specialist George K. Yamauchi, at the time of exportation to the United States, the prices at which such or similar merchandise was freely sold or offered for sale in the principal markets of Japan, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, were at the invoiced unit values, net packed, or plus packing where packing is listed separately on the invoices as not being included in the entered unit values.

> 3. That the appeals for reappraisement set forth in Schedule “A”, are submitted on this stipulation.

*866Accepting this stipulation as a statement of facts, I find and hold that export value, as defined in section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (T.D. 54165), is the proper basis for determining value of the merchandise marked with the letter “A” and with the initials of the commodity specialist on the invoices covered by the entries in these reappraise-ments, and that such value is the invoice unit values, net packed, or plus packing where the packing is listed separately on the invoices as not being included in the entered unit values.

In all other resj>ects and as to all other merchandise, the appeals for reappraisement are dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Exhibit 32.2





Certification of Chief Financial Officer


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350


and Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b)








My name is Dr. Jaiju Maliakal and I am the Chief Financial Officer and Secretary Treasurer of Sweetwater Resources, Inc. (the “Company”).





I hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 that to the best of my knowledge and belief:





(1)
the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2010, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 18, 2010 (“Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended; and





(2)
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of the operations of Sweetwater Resources, Inc. as of, and for, the periods presented in the Report.








Jaiju Maliakal


Chief Financial Officer and


Secretary Treasurer


Sweetwater Resources, Inc.





Date:  June 18, 2010











-1-
# 

# CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION

POWERNOTES (SM)

With Maturities of 9 months or more from Date of Issue

Registration No.  333-97047

Filed Pursuant to Rule 424 (b) (3)

PRICING SUPPLEMENT NO.  376                                                                   Trade Date:  01/05/04

(To Prospectus Supplement dated August 15, 2002 &

  Prospectus dated August  8,2002)                                                                Issue Date:   01/08/04

The Date of this Pricing SupplementJanuary 05, 2004

SUBJECT TO REDEMPTION OR REPAYMENT

 CUSIP                                                                                                                                   Date and terms of redemption or

     or       Stated                                                                   Interest                                       repayment (includingany

Common  Interest                      Price to  Discounts &        Payment     Survivors                  applicable regular or special

  Code      Rate (1)   Maturity  Public (2) Commissions       Frequency       Option  Yes/No     record dates)

14911QRR4   3.75%         01/15/10           100%              1.0%                  Semi-Annually             YES         NO                                        

 

Principal                                                                                 1st Payment             Day         

Amount                  Proceeds                  Dealer                           Date                   Count

$3,592,000.00         $3,556,080.00         ABN AMRO Inc.        07/15/04                               30/360    

Original Issue DiscountNote:                                                                          Total Amount of OID:

____  Yes                X   No                                                                                  N/A

The interest rates on the PowerNotes (SM) may be changed by Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation from time to time, but any such change will not affect the interest rate on any PowerNotes (SM) offered prior to the effective date of the change.  Prior to the date of this Pricing Supplement, $384.926 mm principal amount of the PowerNotes (SM) were sold at interest rates then in effect.  Subsequent offerings of PowerNotes (SM) will be made under the Prospectus Supplement and Prospectus dated August 8,2002.

Expressed as a percentage of aggregate principal amount.  Actual Price to Public may be less, and will be determined by prevailing market prices at the time of purchase as set forth in the confirmation sheet.
No. 58678.

protest 236630-K (New York).

#### Morganite, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of Morganite strips for trolley inserts similar in all material *258respects to those the subject of *Morganite, Inc.*v. *United States*(29 Cust. Ct. 76, C. D. 1448), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: retmar@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:42:32 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,

Marj Rettig

Tucson, AZ 85755
Case 2:02-cv-01689-JCC Document 1 Filed 08/15/02 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:02-cv-01689-JCC Document 1 Filed 08/15/02 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:02-cv-01689-JCC Document 1 Filed 08/15/02 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:02-cv-01689-JCC Document 1 Filed 08/15/02 Page 4 of 4
Before the First Division,

September 11, 1967

No. P67/299.

#### S. Nakashima, Inc. *v.*United States, protest 61/16776 (New York).

Beckworth, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest 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.
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 529 

Commending Brigadier General George Stannard and the Second Vermont 

Brigade upon the 144th anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 28, 2007 

Mr. WELCH of Vermont submitted the following resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on Armed Services 

RESOLUTION 

Commending Brigadier General George Stannard and the 

Second Vermont Brigade upon the 144th anniversary 

of the Battle of Gettysburg. 

Whereas in July 1863 the men of the Second Vermont Brigade, commanded by Brigadier General George Stannard, 

reached Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, which was to become 

the greatest battlefield of the Civil War, having only days 

and hours remaining in their nine-month enlistments; 

Whereas when called upon to fight late on the second day of 

the battle, the Second Vermont Brigade helped stabilize 

the Union line on Cemetery Ridge, recaptured a battery 

of artillery, and captured 80 Confederate soldiers; 

Whereas on the morning of July 3 the 13th Vermont, 14th 

Vermont, and 16th Vermont Regiments of the Second 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 529 IH 

Vermont Brigade were positioned in front of the Union 

line; 

Whereas while Confederate artillery shelled the Union positions for two hours in the early afternoon, the 

Vermonters held firm; 

Whereas when General Robert E. Lee launched his frontal 

assault, known ever after as Pickett’s Charge, the 

Vermonters responded by launching an attack; 

Whereas General Stannard ordered the 13th and 16th Regiments to ‘‘change front forward on first company’’ and 

swing out into a no-man’s land of shot and shell; 

Whereas the sudden onslaught broke the flank of Pickett’s 

Charge, the Confederates themselves saying it was the 

Vermonters’ fire that defeated them; 

Whereas the 16th Vermont launched a second flank attack 

that defeated a supporting Confederate assault; 

Whereas the 14th Vermont held firm its position throughout 

the charge; 

Whereas the 12th Vermont and 15th Vermont Regiments of 

General Stannard’s Second Vermont Brigade, having 

completed the long march to the battlefield, also stood 

ready to fight; 

Whereas a grand statue of General Stannard stands on Cemetery Ridge honoring all the Vermonters who fought at 

the Battle of Gettysburg; and 

Whereas Vermonters have long remembered the deeds of 

their sons on those shot-torn fields of Pennsylvania: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That upon the occasion of the 144th anni2 versary of the Battle of the Gettysburg, the House of RepVerDate Aug 31 2005 06:19 Jun 29, 2007 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HR529.IH HR529

ccoleman on PRODPC75 with BILLS
3 

•HRES 529 IH 

1 resentatives honors the heroic actions of the Second 

2 Vermont Brigade on the greatest battlefield of the Civil 

3 War, recalling its sacrifices in preserving the Union and 

4 in giving the United States of America a ‘‘new birth of 

5 freedom’’. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with BILLS
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

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

MICHAEL D. MILAM,

Plaintiff,

v.

SUSAN LAY,

Defendant.

Case No. C05-5842FDB

ORDER CHANGING THE CASE

CAPTION AND DIRECTING

PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE

SERVICE FORMS 

This Civil Rights action has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to

Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Plaintiff was given the opportunity to file an amended complaint by

the court. (Dkt. # 34) He has done so and names Susan Lay as the sole defendant in this action

(Dkt. # 37). The clerks office is directed to CHANGE THE CASE CAPTION to reflect Susan

Lay as the defendant.

The order allowing amendment was clear and stated:

Plaintiff is reminded that the court will need service copies and a filled out Marshals

Service form for the newly named defendant. If the documents are not received or

the Second Amended Complaint fails to state a claim this action will be dismissed.

(Dkt. # 34). The court has received an amended complaint, but no service copies and no United

Case 3:05-cv-05842-FDB Document 39 Filed 12/14/06 Page 1 of 2
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 - 2

States Marshal’s service forms. As the complaint is only two pages long and there is only one named

defendant the court will supply the service copies. Plaintiff will need to supply a filled out United

States Marshal’s service form. If the form is not returned to court completed on or before January

19, 2007, the court will again recommend this action be dismissed. 

The clerk is directed send plaintiff one United States Marshal’s service form and note the

January 19, 2007 due date on the court’s calendar. 

 

DATED this 14 day of December, 2006.

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05842-FDB Document 39 Filed 12/14/06 Page 2 of 2
## V E N D O R 

## P R O F I L E

Note: Information is from vendor, however specifications may have
changed. Contact vendor for updates. Water Treatment Catalog and Decision Tool 

### A q u a t e c h

Contact Information

Company Name: Aquatech

Profile: Established in 1981, Aquatech is a water purification company

with technolog ies for industrial and infrastructure markets with a focus on desalination, water reuse, and zero liquid discharge.

Feedwater for treatment includes surface water, well water,

s eawater, and wastewater stream. The company has recently designed a mobile evapora tion unit to treat flowback water in the

Marcellus Basin.

Address: One Four Coins Drive, Canonsburg, PA 15317 USA

Phone: 724

- 746

- 5300

Website: http://www.aquatech.com/index.php



### Treatment Technology

Category: Thermal Evaporation

Subcategory:

Technology Name: MoVapTM

Surface Footprint 424 ft 2

Process Description:

Feedwater TDS/ % Water Recovery

% Waste Stream:

Feed Capacity : 43,000

- 72,000 gpd, depending on the TDS concentration

Costs:
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 544 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                     September 5, 2007.
Whereas, on June 26, 2007, a storm system lasting several days was responsible 
        for bringing heavy and torrential rainfall to eastern Kansas;
Whereas communities in eastern Kansas received up to 21 inches of rain within a 
        four-day period, resulting in devastating floods throughout the region;
Whereas the flooding led to one person's death and more than 3,100 homes and 
        businesses destroyed or sustaining major damage;
Whereas communities in at least 20 counties were evacuated;
Whereas flood waters caused a petroleum refinery tank system to overflow into 
        the Verdigris River, releasing an estimated 71,000 gallons of crude oil 
        into the Coffeyville community and surrounding area;
Whereas, on June 30, 2007, Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius declared a state of 
        disaster for Allen, Anderson, Bourbon, Butler, Chautauqua, Cherokee, 
        Coffey, Cowley, Elk, Franklin, Linn, Miami, Montgomery, Neosho, Osage, 
        Wilson, and Woodson counties;
Whereas, on July 2, 2007, President George W. Bush declared a major Federal 
        disaster for the State of Kansas that included Allen, Anderson, Bourbon, 
        Butler, Chautauqua, Cherokee, Coffey, Cowley, Elk, Franklin, Linn, 
        Miami, Montgomery, Neosho, Osage, Wilson, and Woodson counties;
Whereas other surrounding counties in Kansas also suffered damage from heavy 
        flooding; and
Whereas areas in Oklahoma and Texas experienced devastating floods that resulted 
        in loss of human life and millions of dollars in damage to homes and 
        businesses: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) expresses its heartfelt sympathy for the victims of the 
        devastating thunderstorms that caused severe flooding in 20 counties in 
        eastern Kansas beginning on June 26, 2007;
            (2) conveys its gratitude to the local, State, and Federal officials 
        and emergency personnel who responded swiftly to the crisis, including 
        members of the Kansas National Guard and Kansas Highway Patrol;
            (3) recognizes the generous support of volunteers, private and 
        corporate donors, religious groups, and charitable organizations that 
        have given generously toward the relief efforts following the 
        destructive flooding; and
            (4) commends the spirit of the people of Kansas, who consistently 
        demonstrate an outpouring of compassionate care for neighbors facing 
        adversity and hardship.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
RULES 13a-14(b) AND 15d-14(b) OFTHE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

The undersigned, Thomas L. Wegman, the President, Principal
Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of BioSpecifics Technologies
Corp. (the Company), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:

| | 1. | The Companys report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly
      period ended June 30, 2009 (the Report), fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) 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 operation
      of the Company.                                                   

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this
certification this 12th day of August, 2009.

/s/ Thomas L.
WegmanThomas L. Wegman President, Principal Executive Officer and
Principal Financial Officer

This certification shall not be deemed filed for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange of 1934, or otherwise subject to liability
pursuant to that section. Such certification shall not be deemed to be
incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except to the extent that the Company
specifically incorporates it by reference.

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.

---
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  The undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to their knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended March 31, 2011 of Rangeford Resources, Inc. (the Company) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in such periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in such report.  Very truly yours,   /s/ Frederick ZieglerFrederick ZieglerChief Executive Officer/s/ Frederick ZieglerFrederick ZieglerChief Financial OfficerDated: July 16, 2012
#### Juana DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PEE DEE COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC AND SEXUAL ASSAULT; Ellen Hamilton, Executive Director; Debbie Barrett, Manager, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 00-1222.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 31, 2001.

Decided June 13, 2001.

John A. Gaines, Florence, SC, for appellant. Arthur E. Justice, Jr., Turner, Padgett, Graham *&*Laney, P.A., Florence, SC, for appellees.

Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Juana Davis appeals the district court’s order and judgment granting summary judgment to the Pee Dee Coalition Against Domestic And Sexual Assault and two of its employees. On appeal, Davis contends that the district court erred by finding that she failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation for having engaged in protected contact. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *See Davis v. Pee Dee Coalition,*No. CA-98-3851-4-22 (D.S.C. Jan. 19, 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.*