alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IV

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 383

Expressing the sense of the Congress that environmentally sound processes

for dry and wet cleaning should be accepted by financial institutions

as safe investments.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 27, 2000

Mr. MANZULLO (for himself, Mr. CAMP, Mr. PRICE of North Carolina, Mr.

FROST, Mrs. MEEK of Florida, and Mr. WISE) submitted the following

concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Banking

and Financial Services

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress that environmentally

sound processes for dry and wet cleaning should be accepted by financial institutions as safe investments.

Whereas financial institutions have been justifiably reluctant

to provide loans to garment or fabric cleaning businesses

involved in the use of hazardous chemicals and production of wastes;

Whereas financial institutions have been reluctant to lend

capital to small garment or fabric cleaning businesses because of their use of the chemical perchloroethylene

(perc) or petroleum-based cleaning solvents that cause

harmful airborne emissions and contaminate groundwater;
2

•HCON 383 IH

Whereas new technologies are available which could almost

entirely eliminate these concerns;

Whereas new dry and wet cleaning technologies are available

that use water or carbon dioxide, which are safe and naturally occurring substances that cause no harmful side

effects through contamination of soil, air, and water; and

Whereas only some financial institutions have now begun a

process of lending to small garment or fabric cleaning

businesses that utilize environmentally sound products

and practices: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the Congress urges financial

3 institutions—

4 (1) to promote environmentally responsible dry

5 and wet cleaning processes; and

6 (2) to work with business enterprises to provide

7 streams of capital to protect the environment.

Æ
No. 51827.

#### Fownes Bros. & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 651605-G, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). The claim of the plaintiff was therefore sustained.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION 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 the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Vertical Communications, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kenneth M Clinebell, Interim 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 (the
Act), 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |                                
|------------------- |  | -------------------------------
|Dated: May 15, 2006 |  | /s/ Kenneth M. Clinebell       
|                    |  | Kenneth M. Clinebell           
|                    |  | Interim Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                          5
<LEGEND>
         This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from
         Dynamic Associates,  Inc. and Subsidiaries September 30, 2000 financial
         statements  and is  qualified  in its  entirety  by  reference  to such
         financial statements
</LEGEND>

<CIK>                              0000878146
<NAME>                             Dynamic Associates, Inc.
<CURRENCY>                         US


<S>                                <C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                        9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                         SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                      1.00

<CASH>                                                 579,775
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          3,400,421
<ALLOWANCES>                                           1,157,472
<INVENTORY>                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       2,841,479
<PP&E>                                                 184,215
<DEPRECIATION>                                         100,807
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         4,992,696
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  1,599,270
<BONDS>                                                8,698,693
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                               18,386
<OTHER-SE>                                             (5,310,555)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           4,992,696
<SALES>                                                4,834,805
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       4,834,805
<CGS>                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       4,434,460
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     498,844
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        (98,440)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    (98,440)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                           (98,440)
<EPS-BASIC>                                            (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          (.01)



</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Kelsey, Petty and Seni or Judge Bumgardner

WILLIAMS STEEL ERECTI ON COMPANY, INC. AND LUMBERMEN’S UNDE RWRITING ALLIANCE MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 0352-07-4 PER CURIAM JULY 17, 2007 FRANK SAMUEL CONELY

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION (Scott C. Ford; Brian A. Rich ardson; McCandlish Holton, PC, on briefs), for appellants. (Wesley G. Marshall, on brief), for appellee.

Williams Steel Erection Company, Inc. and its insurer appeal a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission finding that (1) Fran k Samuel Conely’s (claimant) claim for permanent partial disability benefits for disf igurement associated with his November 19, 1999 injury by accident was timely and not barred by the doctrine of laches; and (2) claimant was

entitled to return to Dr. Robert M. Dombrowski for an impairment rating of his left wrist and right pinky finger injuries. We have reviewed the record and the commission’s opinion and find that this appeal is without merit. Accord ingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the commission in its final opinion. See Conely v. Williams Steel Erection Co., Inc. , VWC File No. 198-56-31 (Jan. 10, 2007). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pr esented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the de cisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27.

Affirmed.

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.
No. 56875.

#### Glaser Bros. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 114335-K, etc. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 202 (Friday, October 20, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72521-72522]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-23207]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4584-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2023-0001]


Washington; Amendment No. 6 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Washington (FEMA-4584-DR), dated February 4, 2021, and 
related determinations.

DATES: This change occurred on September 29, 2023.

[[Page 72522]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the 
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Toney L. 
Raines, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer 
for this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Andrew P. Meyer as 
Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, 
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster 
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance 
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and 
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing 
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other 
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially 
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2023-23207 Filed 10-19-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
CONSULTING  AGREEMENT


     CONSULTING  AGREEMENT  dated  as  of  March  2, 2000 between PDC INNOVATIVE
INDUSTRIES,  INC.,  a  Nevada  corporation,  ("PDCI"),  on  the one hand, and M.
RICHARD  CUTLER  ("Cutler"),  BRIAN  A.  LEBRECHT  ("Lebrecht"), VI BUI ("Bui"),
JAMES  STUBLER  ("Stubler"),  GARY WYKIDAL   ("Wykidal")  and  SAMUEL  EISENBERG
("Eisenberg", and, together with Cutler, Lebrecht, Bui, Stubler and Wykidal, the
"Consultants"),  on  the  other  hand.


     WHEREAS:

     A.     Consultants have agreed to render consulting services with regard to
the negotiation and completion of a stock exchange between PDCI and the majority
shareholder  of  MAS Acquisition XIV Corp., an Indiana corporation (the "MAS XIV
Shareholder").

     B.     In  the  event  PDCI is able to complete the Stock Exchange with the
MAS  XIV Shareholder, PDCI wishes to compensate Consultants for their consulting
services.


     NOW  THEREFORE,  it  is  agreed:

     1.     Stock  Compensation.  PDCI  shall  pay and cause to be issued to the
Consultants  a  consulting  fee of 2,465,000 shares of common stock of PDCI (the
"Shares")  immediately upon the execution of a stock exchange agreement with the
MAS  XIV  Shareholder.  Such  shares shall be subject to registration by PDCI on
Form  S-8 within 7 days of PDCI closing on the stock exchange agreement with the
MAS  XIV  Shareholder.  The  Consultants  agree  to  prepare  and  file  the S-8
Registration  Statement at their sole expense.  The parties agree that the value
of  the  Shares  is  equal  to  50% of the closing bid price on the date of this
Agreement.  The  shares shall be issued as follows: 1,252,750 to Cutler, 273,000
to Lebrecht, 204,750 to Bui, 85,000 to Stubler, 615,500 to Eisenberg, and 25,000
to  Wykidal.

     2.     Miscellaneous.  This  Agreement (i) shall be governed by the laws of
the  State  of  California;  (ii)  may be executed in counterparts each of which
shall  constitute  an  original;  (iii)  shall  be  binding upon the successors,
representatives, agents, officers and directors of the parties; and (iv) may not
be  modified  or  changed  except  in  a  writing  signed  by  all  parties.


<PAGE>
     This  Consulting  Agreement  has  been  executed as of the date first above
written.


PDC  INNOVATIVE  INDUSTRIES,  INC.

/S/ Dave Sowers
____________________________________________________
By:     Dave  Sowers,  CEO



CONSULTANTS

/s/ M. Richard Cutler
____________________________________________________
M.  Richard  Cutler

/s/ Brian A. Lebrecht
____________________________________________________
Brian  A.  Lebrecht

/s/ Vi Bui
____________________________________________________
Vi  Bui

/s/ James Stubler
____________________________________________________
James  Stubler

/s/ Samuel Eisenberg
____________________________________________________
Samuel  Eisenberg

/s/ Gary Wykidal
____________________________________________________
Gary Wykidal
No. 54469.

#### A. S. Leather Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 55631-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the issue herein is the same in all material respects as that presented in *Mamary Bros., Inc.*v. *United States*(21 Cust. Ct. 135, C. D. 1142). In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on each of the entries involved.
Before the First Division,

September 30, 1952

No. 56877.

#### M. Kopit Co. *v.*United States,

protests 120636-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of platinum fox fur skins, undressed, similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *O. Brager-Larsen*(36 C. C. P. A. 1, C. A. D. 388). The claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was therefore sustained.
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 Quarterly Report of Embrex, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Randall L. Marcuson, President and 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, 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.



May 4, 2004



/s/ Randall L. MarcusonRandall L. MarcusonPresident and Chief Executive Officer
No. 53851.

#### A. Bondar *v.*United States,

protest 125101-K (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of platinum fox fur skins, undressed, similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. O. *Brager-Larsen*(36 C. C. P. A. 1, C. A. D. 388). The claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was therefore sustained.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6724

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DOUGLAS GERRELLE PITTMAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:16-cr-00020-WO-1; 1:18-cv00611-WO-JEP)

Submitted: December 29, 2021 Decided: January 19, 2022

Before NIEMEYER and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Matthew McGavock Robinson, ROBINSON & BRANDT, PSC, Covington, Kentucky, for 

Appellant.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Douglas Gerrelle Pittman seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. 

Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. 

Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Pittman has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED
No. 50792.

#### Protests 120092-K, etc., of Kaufmann Trading Corp. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 58373.

protests 137419-K, etc. (San Francisco).

#### The Josebra Company et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and the issues involved herein are similar in all respects to the facts and issues in Abstracts 57670 and 57671, the collector was directed to re-reliquidate the entries in accordance with the mandate of this court in its respective original decisions and to refund duties accordingly.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          245414
<SECURITIES>                                    174800
<RECEIVABLES>                                    36632
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                457969
<PP&E>                                        28403929
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                29028199
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           203096
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    28825103
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  29028199
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 78619
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    38107
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 55933
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (15421)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (15421)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (15421)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.47)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.47)
        

</TABLE>
Before the Third Division,

July 7, 1949

No. 53359.

protest 143450-K (New York).

#### Hudson Shipping Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Ekwall, Judge:

Plaintiff in this case protests the liquidation of an entry of clothing which arrived by parcel post from Colombia for the purpose of exportation to Germany. The collector’s letter of transmittal in evidence is in the following language:

> Allowance in duties is claimed for certain articles purportedly claimed exported out of government and customs custody at the Port of New York.

> It appears that one large package of clothing was imported into the United States from Colombia, South America, to be exported to Germany. Due to certain parcel post regulations existing in Germany, the protestant claims he had to repack the original one package into three packages while the original package was still in the Appraiser’s stores. He claims he received permission to do this repacking from the Collector at New York although a search of all the files and records at the Custom House does not reveal the existence of any document granting the permission referred to.

> Assuming without conceding that the purportedly exported three packages are from the original one imported package, certain facts are obvious. The original package was in Public Stores at all times; three packages were delivered from Public Stores to Station P, at the New York Customs House (see green transfer form 6043-C) attached to entry papers; attached to the papers are certain postal forms #3817 indicating that certain parcels were received at Grand Central Station for mailing to Germany. However, the I. E. #36444 of June 5, 1947, attached to the entry papers, does not show a signature of a U. S. Inspector at the lower left hand corner of the entry to establish the fact that the three parcels were in fact exported under government or customs control. Hence, the Collector is not satisfied as to the identity of the articles claimed exported and furthermore there has been no compliance with sections 9.11, 22.11 and 18.25 of the C. R. 1943 and sections 18.2 (a), 18.19 (b) and 22.9 of the C. M. 1943. The Collector is not satisfied that the procedures and requirements of the cited sections in the regulations and the manual have either been followed or complied with because •of the lack of the signature of the U. S. Inspector on the I. E. form #7512.

> The Collector’s decision has been reviewed and is affirmed.

> The protest was received within the statutory period.

Although duly notified of the time and place of hearing the plaintiff did not appear at the hearing. Government counsel moved in evidence the collector’s letter, which motion was granted, and the Government submitted.

*125Upon the record we find that the plaintiff has failed to support its claim and it is therefore overruled.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.