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

March 5, 1953

No. 57115.

protest 183900-K (New York).

#### Koscherak Bros., Inc. *v.*United States,

*364Ekwall, Judge:

This case involves an importation of earthenware from Italy. The items in dispute are described on the invoice as certain numbers of “Dozen assortement 6 pcs/composed 2 Basket, 2 Bowls, 2 Vases.” Plaintiff does not question the rate of duty but claims that assessment was based upon a greater quantity than that imported. Prom the official papers and the testimony of the examiner of this class of merchandise at the port of entry, it is apparent that as to certain cases duty was assessed on six times the number of dozens indicated opposite each case.

The testimony was confined to the cases containing 5 dozen pieces per case. At the hearing, it was conceded by counsel on behalf of the importer that there were in fact 80 pieces rather than 60 in each case of 5 dozen, due to the fact that one of the items in the assortment was a box composed of a cover and a base. No evidence was produced as to the cases containing 6 dozen pieces.

In view of the evidence, it is clear that the collector was in error in.assessing duty upon the merchandise covered by cases 1 to 10, inclusive, upon the basis of 6 times the number of dozens of articles indicated opposite the enumeration of each case on the invoice, as claimed by.the plaintiff herein. In view of the concession made by counsel for the plaintiff at the hearing that there were 80 pieces in each case of the 5-dozen assortment, plaintiff’s claim that duty was assessed upon an excess over the amount of articles imported is sustained, and we hold that duty is properly assessable at the appropriate rates under paragraph 211, Tariff Act of 1930, upon the basis of 80 pieces per ease as to eases 1 to 10, inclusive. As to all other merchandise, the protest is overruled.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Exhibit 10.09

[Essential Innovations Technology Corp. letterhead]


                                February 10, 2003

                              Letter of Agreement

         Re:      Agreement Between Mr. Norm Wuschke and Essential Innovations
                  Technology Corp.

The terms previously laid out in the agreement between parties dated April 1,
2002, are set out below:

         1.       Mr. Norm Wuschke agrees to loan $30,000 USD to Essential
                  Innovations Technology Corporation at a flat rate of 12%
                  interest to be paid back from EI Tech for a total of $33,600
                  USD. (NOTE: The 12% interest will be paid back on the
                  principal regardless of the short length of time duration for
                  the payback of the loan)

         2.       Essential Innovations Technology Corporation agrees to grant
                  Mr. Norm Wuschke the following Warrant Package to accompany
                  its agreed upon loan: 50,000 Warrants @ $.35 USD/share

In reference to the above terms and as of the date of this Letter of Agreement,
Mr. Norm Wuschke, hereby agrees to convert $20,000 USD of the loan made to EI
Tech into EITC common shares at the price of $0.25 share. Following this
conversion Mr. Norm Wuschke agrees that EITC will now owe him the total sum of
$13,600 USD, and he will be issued a share certificate in the amount of 80,000
common shares of Essential Innovations Technology Corp. This is to be a legally
binding document.




/s/ Jason McDiarmid                                         /s/ N Wuschke
---------------------------------------                    ---------------------
Authorized Signatory                                        Authorized Signatory
Essential Innovations Technology Corp.                      Mr. Norm Wuschke

/s/ Steve Wuschke
---------------------------------------
Signature of Witness
CFO
Essential Innovations Technology Corp.
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2
 
                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
 
   
     We hereby consent to the use in the Prospectus constituting part of this
Registration Statement on Form S-4 of SpinCycle, Inc. of our report dated March
13, 1998 relating to the financial statements of SpinCycle, Inc., which appears
in such prospectus. We also consent to the reference to us under the heading
"Experts" in such Prospectus.
    
 
   
                                          /s/  PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
    
 
                                          --------------------------------------
   
                                          PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
    
 
Phoenix, Arizona
   
September 24, 1998
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> BD
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-25-1999             JUN-25-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999             JUN-27-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-26-1999             MAR-26-1999
<CASH>                                          10,451                  10,451
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,205,060               3,205,060
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                            262,343                 262,343
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                        2,403,609               2,403,609
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                             69,151                  69,151
<PP&E>                                          10,416                  10,416
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,693,219               3,693,219
<SHORT-TERM>                                    55,500                  55,500
<PAYABLES>                                   3,288,152               3,288,152
<REPOS-SOLD>                                         0                       0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                          2,359,043               2,359,043
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                              28,185                  28,185
<LONG-TERM>                                          0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                         1,070                   1,070
<OTHER-SE>                                     202,589                 202,589
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,693,219               3,693,219
<TRADING-REVENUE>                               18,580                  29,508
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                            34,623                 106,286
<COMMISSIONS>                                   16,428                  46,946
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                    6,372                  21,193
<FEE-REVENUE>                                   10,521                  28,030
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              23,596                  71,736
<COMPENSATION>                                  36,182                  90,268
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,706                  28,413
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      11,706                  28,413
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,533                  18,358
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .70                    1.72
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .70                    1.71
        

</TABLE>
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 24, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

134428 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 134428 

 COA: 277677 

Wayne CC: 05-009068-01,

TREMAIN VERNON JONES, 06-003310-01, 06-003384-01

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 21, 2007 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t0917 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 24, 2007 

 Clerk
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources 

Division Air Quality 

Beverly 

Governor 

Perdue Sheila C. Holman 

Stanley A. Meiburg 

Acting Regional Administrator 

US EPA, Region 4 

Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center 

61 Forsyth Street, SW 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303 

Director 

November 9, 2010 

Subject: State Implementation Plan Revisions 

Dear Mr. Meiburg: 

Dee Freeman 

Secretary 

On July 15, 2010, the Environmental Management Commission (EM C) amended the state's 15A 

NCAC 02D Section .0900 Volatile Organic Compounds rules to reflect the Group IV Control Techniques 

Guidelines (CTG) level of control. These rules were the subject of a public hearing held on April27, 2010. 

Enclosed is the hearing record for this public hearing and a copy of the rules for which approval is 

requested. Note that the rules for which approval is requested, which became effective September 1, 2010, 

differ from the rules in Chapter II of the hearing record as a result of technical changes required by the State 

Rules Review Commission. The hard copy of the rules and hearing record is identical to the .pdf files 

recorded on the CD. Please proceed to approve the aforementioned rules and amendments as part of the 

federally-approved State Implementation Plan. 

If you need additional information or have any questions, please contact Ms. Joelle Burleson of my 

staff at (919)733-14 7 4 or~-"""-~'-"'-'-'"-"~-""=""-~'-''"='''-'''-"'-~·-'--'~"'-"-'·' 

Enclosures 

SCH/jb 

c: Dick Schutt 

Lynorae Benjamin 

Nacosta Ward 

Hearing Record File 

1641 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1641 

2728 Capital Blvd., Raleigh, NC 2'7604 

Phone: 919-733-3340 I FAX 919-'715-'7175 I Internet: www.ncair.org 

An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer 

Sincerely, 

Sheila C. Holman 

N~~th Carolina 

/Vatura/1!1
No. 52082.

protests 540444-G, etc. (New York).

#### Van Raalte Co. *v.*United States,

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 FURNISHED 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 SWS Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Kenneth R. Hanks, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                   |  |                        
|------------------ |  | -----------------------
|Date: May 10, 2006 |  | /S/ Kenneth R. Hanks   
|                   |  | Kenneth R. Hanks       
|                   |  | Chief Financial Officer
# L_2022280EN.01004701.xml

| 28.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 280/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 280/47

---

COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION (CFSP) 2022/2086

of 27 October 2022

implementing Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 31(2) thereof,

Having regard to Council Decision 2011/72/CFSP of 31 January 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (1), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 31 January 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/72/CFSP. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 31 January 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/72/CFSP.

| (2) | On the basis of a review by the Council, the entries for seven persons and the information regarding their rights of defence and their right to effective judicial protection should be deleted. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On the basis of a review by the Council, the entries for seven persons and the information regarding their rights of defence and their right to effective judicial protection should be deleted.

| (3) | The Annex to Decision 2011/72/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The Annex to Decision 2011/72/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The Annex to Decision 2011/72/CFSP is amended as set out in the Annex to this Decision.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 27 October 2022.

For the Council

The President

M. BEK

---

(1)  
  OJ L 28, 2.2.2011, p. 62.

1

---

ANNEX

In sections A and B of the Annex to Decision 2011/72/CFSP, the entries for the following persons are deleted:

| ‘4. | Mohamed Ben Moncef Ben Mohamed TRABELSI’; |
| --- | --- |

‘4.

Mohamed Ben Moncef Ben Mohamed TRABELSI’;

| ‘36. | Kaïs Ben Slaheddine Ben Haj Hamda BEN ALI’; |
| --- | --- |

‘36.

Kaïs Ben Slaheddine Ben Haj Hamda BEN ALI’;

| ‘37. | Hamda Ben Slaheddine Ben Haj Hamda BEN ALI’; |
| --- | --- |

‘37.

Hamda Ben Slaheddine Ben Haj Hamda BEN ALI’;

| ‘38. | Najmeddine Ben Slaheddine Ben Haj Hamda BEN ALI’; |
| --- | --- |

‘38.

Najmeddine Ben Slaheddine Ben Haj Hamda BEN ALI’;

| ‘39. | Najet Bent Slaheddine Ben Haj Hamda BEN ALI’; |
| --- | --- |

‘39.

Najet Bent Slaheddine Ben Haj Hamda BEN ALI’;

| ‘43. | Imed Ben Habib Ben Bouali LTAIEF’; |
| --- | --- |

‘43.

Imed Ben Habib Ben Bouali LTAIEF’;

| ‘44. | Naoufel Ben Habib Ben Bouali LTAIEF’. |
| --- | --- |

‘44.

Naoufel Ben Habib Ben Bouali LTAIEF’.

---
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Steven Moody Ph.D v. Texas Board of Pardons and Parole Division, et 

al

Appellate case number: 01-21-00316-CV

Trial court case number: 2020-00034

Trial court: 11th District Court of Harris County

Appellant, acting pro se, has filed a motion “Requesting for Loaner of Courts Records, and 

Trial Court’s Reporter’s Records, and Transcript’s Documentation.” To the extent that appellant 

requests a loan of original court records, the motion is denied. Considering the motion as instead 

requesting copies of the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record, the motion is granted with respect 

to the clerk’s record. Although a clerk’s record has been filed, a reporter’s record has not been 

filed and the court reporter has averred that a reporter’s record was not taken.

Accordingly, we direct the trial court clerk to send a copy of the clerk’s record to appellant 

within 7 days of this order.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ____/s/ Sarah B. Landau________

 Acting individually 

Date: ___September 21, 2021___
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION FURNISHED 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 report of SWS Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kenneth R. Hanks, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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: February 9, 2010 |  | /S/ Kenneth R. Hanks   
|                       |  | Kenneth R. Hanks       
|                       |  | Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q pursuant to
Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the
Form 10-Q for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation
language in such filing.
Before the Second Division,

June 3, 1965

No. 69338.

#### Empire Findings Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 64/22286, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation -of counsel that the items of merchandise marked “S” and “P” consist of stethoscopes or parts thereof, respectively, similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 68126, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
GREAT LAKES 2020

A FOOT OF ICE ON 

THE RAILROAD TRACKS

Winds and 15 foot waves on top 

of record high water levels in Lake 

Michigan caused major flooding to 

the Port of Milwaukee. Floodwaters 

froze on the rail leading out of the 

port, leaving a foot 

of ice. 

TOTAL LOSSES: 

$10M+

ALASKA 2022

300 FEET OF EROSION

Hooper Bay, Alaska lost four rows of 

dunes to erosion in a severe storm 

in September 2022. Only one row 

of dunes remained. The local middle 

school science teacher measured 

300 feet of erosion. 

TOTAL LOSSES: 

$15M+

NEW JERSEY 2021

86 RESCUES

When Tropical Storm Henri

hit Newark, New Jersey, 

police and firefighters 

rescued 59 adults and 16 

children. Most were stuck 

in flooded cars. One house 

was evacuated 

after its 

foundation 

collapsed. 

TOTAL LOSSES: 

$700M

LOUISIANA 2021

STILL FLOODED TWO 

MONTHS LATER

Two months after Hurricane Ida, 

homes in LaPlace, Louisiana 

were still flooded and growing 

moldy. One such house had 

been in the resident’s family 

for more than a hundred years. 

Their great-grandparents 

had built it 

after immigrating

from Africa. TOTAL LOSSES: 

$76.5B

PUERTO RICO 2020

LOSSES TO FARMERS 

STILL RECOVERING 

Hurricane Isaías destroyed $50 million 

in crops from Puerto Rico’s farms. 

One farmer lost 10,000 banana 

plants. This crop would have 

been only his second 

harvest since Hurricane 

Maria in 2017. TOTAL LOSSES: 

$5.2B

CALIFORNIA 2021

THE ROAD FELL 

INTO THE OCEAN

Heavy rains fell on burn scars left 

by wildfires. This led to floods and 

mudslides. One police officer was 

driving down the highway when he 

saw coastal erosion so severe that

a “section of roadway...had 

fallen into the ocean.”

TOTAL LOSSES: 

$1.2B

HAWAII 2021

WAIST-DEEP 

FLOODWATERS 

A Kona storm (cyclone) caused 

flooding in Hawaii. It damaged 

homes and businesses across 

several islands. Honolulu saw 

waist-deep floodwaters. Damage 

to a power station left many 

without electricity. 

TOTAL LOSSES: 

$5M+

EVERY DISASTER IS EXPENSIVE

EVERY DISASTER TELLS A STORY

| 5
(Reap. Dec. 10815)

#### Frank P. Dow Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. C-4570, etc.

(Decided August 31, 1964)

*TompTcms & TompMns*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Rao, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, annexed to this decision and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between counsel for the Plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States, Defendant, that the auto*399mobiles specified on the invoices accompanying the entries covered by the re-appraisement appeals listed in the attached Schedule A, which Schedule A is made a part of this stipulation, that were appraised at a value of $1240.00 each, net (Canadian dollars), consist of automobiles manufactured in England, and imported into the United States from Canada imported prior to February 27,1958.

> That there was no “foreign value,” or “export value,” or “United States value,” as defined in Sections 402(c), (d), and (e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, for the automobiles under appeal at the time of exportation thereof.

> That in determining the “cost of production” value as defined in Section 402 (f) of said Act, the Appraiser included in his above value of $1240 each, net, a cost of $95.00 (Canadian dollars) representing a Canadian excise tax, as well as a cost of $230.00 (Canadian dollars) representing a Canadian sales tax. That said Canadian excise tax ($95) and sales tax ($230) were paid to the Canadian government prior to exportation to the United States, but they were refunded after exportation, under the same circumstances and conditions involved in the case of *John V. Carr*& *Son, Inc.*v. *United States,*Reap. Dec. 10442, and that the record in said *John V. Carr & Son, Inc.*case may be incorporated as a part of the record in this ease.

> Plaintiff limits its appeals to the claim that said excise tax of $95.00, and the said sales tax of $230.00 should not be included as a part of the cost of production dutiable value.

Upon the agreed facts and the record in the cited case, which is incorporated herein, I find cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the automobiles covered by these appeals for reappraisement and that such value is the appraised value of $1,240 each,net (Canadian dollars), less $95 (Canadian) representing a Canadian excise tax, less $230 (Canadian) representing a Canadian sales tax.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
No. 55040.

#### H. Muehlstein & Co. *v.*United States,

protests 133671-K, etc. (Buffalo).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
EXHIBIT 23

LOGO

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors

Cape Fear Bank Corporation

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement No. 333-133533 on Form S-8 of Cape Fear Bank Corporation of our reports dated
March 31, 2008, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Cape Fear Bank Corporation for each of the years in the three year period ended December 31, 2007, which appears in the December 31, 2007 annual report on Form 10-K
of Cape Fear Bank Corporation.



|                          
|--------------------------
|LOGO                      
|                          
|Greenville, North Carolina
|March 31, 2008