alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 67632.

#### Coldwater Seafood Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 61/10328 (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of fish blocks similar in all material respects to those the subject of *The Lee Herrmann Co., a/c The Coldwater Seafood Corp.*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 49, C.D. 2101), the claim of the plaintiff whs sustained.
Case 3:06-cv-05231-RBL Document 47 Filed 11/05/07 Page 1 of 3
Case 3:06-cv-05231-RBL Document 47 Filed 11/05/07 Page 2 of 3
Case 3:06-cv-05231-RBL Document 47 Filed 11/05/07 Page 3 of 3
ORDER (NO. CV06-0290RSL) - 1 

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 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 

50 

51 

Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 

Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 

Phone: (206) 359-8000 

Fax: (206) 359-9000 

 THE HONORABLE ROBERT S. LASNIK 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

AT SEATTLE 

CLASSMATES ONLINE, INC., a Washington 

corporation, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

GUOPING DING, an individual; RANDY 

PING, an individual; and KAOSCO 

TECHNOLOGY, INC., a Washington 

corporation, 

 Defendants. 

NO. CV06-0290RSL 

ORDER GRANTING CLASSMATES 

ONLINE, INC.'S MOTION FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME FOR SERVICE 

UNDER RULE 4(m) 

This matter came regularly before the Court on Plaintiff Classmates Online, Inc.'s motion 

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) and 6(b) for an extension of the time for service of process of the 

summonses and the Complaint on Defendants Guoping Ding and/or Randy Ding and Kaosco 

Technology, Inc.. Plaintiff requests an additional ninety (90) days in which to effect service of 

process. The Court has considered Plaintiff's motion and the records and files herein. Now, 

having considered the above evidence, and being fully advised in the premises, it is hereby 

Case 2:06-cv-00290-RSL Document 4 Filed 07/17/06 Page 1 of 2
ORDER (NO. CV06-0290RSL) - 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 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 

50 

51 

Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 

Seattle, Washington 98101-3099 

Phone: (206) 359-8000 

Fax: (206) 359-9000 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Plaintiff's Motion is GRANTED. The ninety (90) day 

extension shall run from the date of this Order. 

SO ORDERED this 17th day of July, 2006 

A

Robert S. Lasnik 

United States District Judge 

Presented by: 

s/ William C. Rava, WSBA #29948

Jennifer E. Bell, WSBA #31476 

Matthew D. Schneller, WSBA #35868 

Perkins Coie LLP 

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 

Seattle, WA 98101-3099 

Telephone: 206-359-8000 

Fax: 206-359-9000 

E-mail:WRava@perkinscoie.com 

 JBell@perkinscoie.com 

 MSchneller@perkinscoie.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Classmates Online, Inc. 

Case 2:06-cv-00290-RSL Document 4 Filed 07/17/06 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 49 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. J. RES. 49

      Proposing a constitutional amendment to protect human life.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 5, 1998

 Mr. Smith of New Hampshire (for himself, Mr. Helms, and Mr. Ashcroft) 
  introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
      Proposing a constitutional amendment to protect human life.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section 1. The right to life is the paramount and most 
fundamental right of a person.
    ``Section 2. With respect to the right to life guaranteed to 
persons by the fifth and fourteenth articles of amendment to the 
Constitution, the work `person' applies to all human beings, 
irrespective of age, health, function, or condition of dependency, 
including their unborn offspring at every stage of their biological 
development including fertilization.
    ``Section 3. No unborn child shall be deprived of life by any 
person: Provided, however, That nothing in this article shall prohibit 
a law allowing justification to be shown for only those medical 
procedures required to prevent the death of either the pregnant woman 
or her unborn offspring, as long as such a law requires every 
reasonable effort to be made to preserve the lives of both of them.
    ``Section 4. The Congress and the several States shall have the 
power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.''.
                                 <all>
```
No. 57034.

protest 159937-K (Baltimore).

#### Whyte Bookshop & Gallery, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

At the trial it was agreed that the involved book is the same as the merchandise which was the subject of *The University of Chicago*v. *United States*(27 Cust. Ct. 218, C. D. 1374). The claim for free entry was therefore sustained.
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Gregory Silas, Respondent.

[631 NYS2d 916]

—Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Berke, J.), dated July 6, 1994, which granted that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence and dismissed the indictment.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence is denied, and the indictment is reinstated.

Under the circumstances presented, the defendant did not establish standing to seek suppression of the narcotics recovered by a police officer from behind a garbage dumpster situated on a public sidewalk. The hearing testimony evinced that the defendant was on a street corner for at least five minutes when a marked police vehicle drove past his location. As the police vehicle passed the defendant, he walked approximately 15 feet to a garbage dumpster and placed an object behind the dumpster before returning to his original position. Unbeknownst to the defendant, he was under the observation of an undercover police officer. The undercover officer immediately walked over and looked behind the dumpster and found only one object there, a rolled-up brown paper bag containing 41 vials of crack cocaine. The defendant was thereupon placed under arrest. The defendant subsequently moved to suppress "the evidence seized from him” as the product of an "illegal” search and seizure. However, the defendant’s claim of standing is not supported by the record, which does not evince that the defendant had a personal, legitimate expectation of privacy in a brown paper bag found behind a garbage dumpster on a public sidewalk *(see, People v Whitfield,*81 NY2d 904, 906; *People v Wesley,*73 NY2d 351, 357; *People v Good-wine, Yll*AD2d 708).

In any event, the defendant is not entitled to suppression of the subject narcotics. The undercover police officer was well within her authority to investigate the area behind the garbage dumpster and determine the nature of the item. Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the undercover officer had *468probable cause to arrest the defendant upon the recovery of the narcotics from behind the dumpster. Given the absence of any other object behind the dumpster, it appeared more probable than not that the defendant had criminally possessed the subject narcotics *(see, People v Carrasquillo,*54 NY2d 248, 254). Indeed, under the circumstances, a reasonable person possessing the undercover’s expertise would have reached the same conclusion *(see, People v Skinner,*204 AD2d 664; *People v Hernandez,*198 AD2d 299).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in granting that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress evidence seized from him and in dismissing the indictment as being based on legally insufficient evidence. Further, we see no reason to dismiss this indictment in furtherance of justice *(see,*CPL 210.40). Sullivan, J. P., Rosenblatt, Thompson and Ritter, JJ., concur.
Exhibit
32.2




CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


AULTRA
GOLD INC.


FORM
10-KSB FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2007


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I, John
Yee, Director of Aultra Gold Inc. (the "Company"), hereby 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
Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended December 31,
2007, which this certification accompanies (the "Annual Report"), fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and




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





By:
            /s/John
      YeeDated:
      April 14, 2008
            
            Name:
      John Yee
              Title:
      Director
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.7

                                    SUMMARY

   Loan Agreement Between Stephan Schambach and Intershop Communications AG

Parties             Stephan Schambach and Intershop Communications AG

Loan Amount         Up to Euro 5,000,000 by Mr. Schambach to INTERSHOP
                    Communications AG.

Purpose             Working capital credit ("Betriebsmittelkredit") in form of
                    an overdraft credit without earmarking for a specific
                    purpose.

Interest Rate       6% per year.

Delivery of Funds   The amount has to be transferred in total or partly upon
                    request by the borrower to its account at Commerzbank Jena
                    (Germany) within five (5) business days (overdraft credit).

Collateral          Assignment of all current, open claims of INTERSHOP
                    Communications Inc.

Termination         Three months' notice without cause, or immediately with
                    cause (e.g., the delay of interest repayments, special
                    breach of contract, making of false statements with respect
                    to the granting or the continued granting of the loan,
                    opening of certain proceedings related to the borrower's
                    bankruptcy, or final suspension of payments)

Repayment           The loan is due in total on the day on which the agreement
                    has been terminated. The borrower can repay the loan in
                    total or in installments at any time.

Governing Law       The laws of the Federal Republic of Germany.
Skip to main content

An official website of the United States Government        

        -  Home 
        -  About the FFB 
        -  FFB Reports 
        -  Contact the FFB 

-  Monthly Activity Reports 
-  Financial Statements 
-  Annual Reports 

# Financial Statements

Please see the most recent financial statements for the Federal Financing Bank located below:
      - FY 2023 and FY2022 Financial Statement
      - FY 2022 and FY2021 Financial Statement
      - FY 2021 and FY2020 Financial Statement
      - FY 2020 and FY2019 Financial Statement
      - FY 2019 and FY2018 Financial Statement
      - FY 2018 and FY2017 Financial Statement
      - FY 2017 and FY2016 Financial Statement
      - FY 2016 and FY2015 Financial Statement
      - FY 2015 and FY2014 Financial Statement
      - FY 2014 and FY2013 Financial Statement
      - FY 2013 and FY2012 Financial Statement
      - FY 2012 and FY2011 Financial Statement
      - FY 2011 and FY2010 Financial Statement
      - FY 2010 and FY2009 Financial Statement
      - FY 2009 and FY2008 Financial Statement
      - FY 2008 and FY2007 Financial Statement
      - FY 2007 and FY2005 Financial Statement
      - FY 2006 and FY2005 Financial Statement
      - FY 2005 and FY2004 Financial Statement
      - FY 2004 and FY2003 Financial Statement
      - FY 2003 and FY2002 Financial Statement
      - FY 2002 and FY2001 Financial Statement
      - FY 2001 and FY2000 Financial Statement
      - FY 2000 and FY1999 Financial Statement
      - FY 1999 and FY1998 Financial Statement
      - FY 1998 and FY1997 Financial Statement
      - FY 1996 and FY1995 Financial Statement
      - FY 1994 Financial Statement
      - FY 1993 Financial Statement

Federal Financing Bank (FFB)

FFB@treasury.gov
No. 68151.

#### Balfour Guthrie & Co., Ltd. *v.*United States,

protest 60/29411 (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issue is the same in all material respects as that the subject of *United States*v. *Steinberg Bros.*(47 CCPA 47, C.A.D. 727), and the record showing that the merchandise consists of nylon gloves similar in use to silk gloves, knit or crocheted, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration #18145 and #18146; FLORIDA Disaster Number FL-00193]

# AGENCY:

U.S. Small Business Administration.

# ACTION:

Amendment 1.

# SUMMARY:

This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Florida (FEMA-4734-DR), dated 09/09/2023.

*Incident:*                         Hurricane Idalia.                    

*Incident Period:*                         08/27/2023 through 09/04/2023.                    

# DATES:

Issued on 10/02/2023.

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         11/08/2023.                    

*Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         06/10/2024.                    

# ADDRESSES:

Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Alan Escobar, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of Florida, dated 09/09/2023, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster.

*Primary Counties:*                     Baker, Charlotte, Duval, Nassau.                

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

Francisco Sánchez, Jr.,

Associate Administrator, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience.

[FR Doc. 2023-22393 Filed 10-6-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8026-09-P
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.1

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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of SPARTA, Inc. (the
Company) for the period ended September 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert C. Sepucha,
Chief Executive 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:



| | (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.

November 13, 2002

/s/ Robert C. Sepucha

---

Robert C. Sepucha
Chief Executive Officer
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T B OO KE R T . WAS HING T ON , P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. THE R I TZ CARL TON H OTEL CO M PA N Y , LLC, D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 10- 56831 D. C . No . 2 : 1 0 - c v - 0 8 2 6 1 - UA DU TY ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia A udr e yB . C ol l i ns , C hi e f Judge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r19, 2011 ** B efo re: G O O D W IN , W A L L A C E , an dM cK E O W N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. B ooke rT . W a s hi ngt on appe a l s pr o s e f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s or de rde ny i ng hi s r e que s tf

orl e a ve t o pr oc e e d i n f

orm apaupe r i s i n hi s T i t l e V I I a c t i on. W e ha ve ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o th e d e te rm in a tio n th a t a 

# FI LED JAN 10 2 012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 56831 2 c om pl a i ntl a c ks ar guabl e s ubs t anc e i n l aw orf a c t , a nd f ora n abus e of

di s c r e t i on th e d e n ia l o f

le a v e to p r o c e e din f

o rm ap aup e r is . T

ri pa t iv. Fi rs t

N at ’l B an k & T ru st , 821 F . 2d 1368, 1369 ( 9th C i r . 1987) . W e r e ve r s e a nd r e m and. T he di stri ctcourtconcl ud ed thatW as hi ng t on ’ s propo se d com pl ai ntw as fri v o l o u s o r w i th o u tm eri tb ecau se W ash i n g t o n h adal l eg edth e sam e cl ai m ag ai n st th e s a m e d e f

e n d an t in a n e ar lie ra c tio n th a t w a s d is m is s e dw ith p r e ju d ic e . H ow e ve r , ar e vi e w of

the r e c or d s how s tha ti n thi s a c t i on, W a s hi ngt on a l l e ge d a cl ai m base d o n a re t al i at ory t erm i nat i on , w hi l e the pri or ac t i on focuse d o n al l eged di s c r i m i na t i on dur i ng W a s hi ngt on’ s e m pl oy m e nt . A c c or di ngl y , w e r e ve r s e a nd rem an dt o th e d i stri ctco u rtfo r fu rth er p ro ceed i n g s. W as hi ng t on ’ s r em ai ni ng cont ent i on s are un pers uasi ve. W a s h in g to n s h a ll b e arh is o w n c o s ts o n ap p e a l. RE V E RS E D a n d RE MAND E D.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6409

CLARENCE BUCKNER, a/k/a Mark Dave Hill,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

RONALD WALKER,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District 

Judge. (8:10-cv-03416-DKC)

Submitted: July 21, 2011 Decided: July 25, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, 

Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clarence Buckner, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Clarence Buckner appeals the district court’s orders

dismissing his civil complaint for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction and denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for 

the reasons stated by the district court. Buckner v. Walker, 

No. 8:10-cv-03416-DKC (D. Md. Feb. 7, 2011; March 31, 2011). 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
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 7 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 7

Expressing the sense of Congress that Federal retirement cost-of-living 
                   adjustments should not be delayed.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 13, 1997

  Mr. Sarbanes (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Warner, and Mr. Akaka) 
 submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to 
                 the Committee on Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of Congress that Federal retirement cost-of-living 
                   adjustments should not be delayed.

Whereas over the years, Federal employees and retirees have regularly been 
        forced to bear a disproportionate share in connection with deficit 
        reduction: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That it is the sense of Congress that cost-of-living adjustments for 
Federal retirees should be paid beginning in January of each year, as 
current law prescribes, and should not be delayed, whether as part of a 
budget agreement or otherwise.
                                 <all>
```
Case 2:06-cr-00198-RSL Document 137 Filed 06/26/06 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cr-00198-RSL Document 137 Filed 06/26/06 Page 2 of 2
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





I, Robert A. Biagioni, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Katie Gold Corp. for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Katie Gold Corp.



Date:  March 24, 2006



/s/ Robert A. Biagioni

_______________________________

Robert A. Biagioni

President, C.E.O. and Director

(Principal Executive Officer)