alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 50300.

#### Protest 92146-K of R. C. Williams & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that after the effective date of T. D. 48033, there remained in warehouse 15 cases containing 36 gallons of Scotch whisky which had been aged in wooden containers at least 4 years prior to the date of entry or withdrawal from warehouse, as required by said trade agreement; that at the time of withdrawal for consumption and subsequent liquidation, the age certificate required by article 459, Customs Regulations of 1937, was not available; and that there has now been filed with the collector a certificate issued *217-by a competent officer of the Government of Great Britain establishing to, the satisfaction of the collector that the Scotch whisky in question was in fact aged in wood not less than 4 years prior to exportation to the United States. In accordance -with stipulation of counsel, and since neither the trade agreement nor the Customs Regulations of 1931, as amended by T. D. 48057, In effect at the time of the withdrawal, limits the period within which an age certificate shall be produced, plaintiff’s claim was sustained. It was held that the 15 cases containing 36 gallons are properly dutiable at $2.50 per proof .gallon under paragraph 802, as modified by T. D. 48033.
No. 52836.

#### Holland & Sherry, Ltd. *v.*United States,

protests 67261-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83.) 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. The protests were sustained to this extent.
No. 65350.

#### Frank Kraus *v.*United States,

protest 59/29043 (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Bao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of paper needle holders the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 63099, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 13, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-41620 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MARIO CORTEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:04-CR-2511-4

-------------------- Before BARKSDALE, GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Mario Cortez appeals the 57-month sentence imposed following his plea of guilty to conspiracy with intent to distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana. He argues that the district court erred by refusing to reduce his advisory guidelines offense level for a minor or minimal role in the offense. Although Cortez may have had the status of a “hired hand,” he was apprehended while loading 363 kilograms of marijuana, and he accompanied a shipment to its destination. Cortez knew the leader of the drug conspiracy, knew that person to be a marijuanaNo. 05-41620 -2- distributor, and resumed his association with that person as soon as he was released from prison. The record shows that Cortez was involved with more than 700 kilograms of marijuana; he assisted with the transportation of at least two loads; and he did whatever the leader told him to do. The district court did not commit clear error by refusing to reduce Cortez’s offense level for his role in the offense. See United States v. Garcia , 242 F.3d 593, 598 (5 th Cir. 2001); United States v. Zuniga , 18 F.3d 1254, 1261 (5th Cir. 1994). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 60 Introduced in House (IH)]

  1st Session
H. J. RES. 60

 Designating the square dance as the national folk dance of the United 
                                States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 17, 1999

    Mr. Saxton introduced the following joint resolution; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
 Designating the square dance as the national folk dance of the United 
                                States.

Whereas square dancing has been a popular tradition in America since early 
        colonial days;
Whereas square dancing has attained a revered status as part of the folklore of 
        this country;
Whereas square dancing is a joyful expression of the vibrant spirit of the 
        people of the United States;
Whereas the American people value the display of etiquette among men and women 
        which is a major element of square dancing;
Whereas square dancing is a traditional form of family recreation which 
        symbolizes a basic strength of this country, namely, the unity of the 
        family;
Whereas square dancing epitomizes democracy because it dissolves arbitrary 
        social distinctions; and
Whereas it is fitting that the square dance be added to the array of symbols of 
        our national character and pride: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the square dance is 
designated the national folk dance of the United States of America.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 31.1

                   CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Hugh R. Frater, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Anthracite Capital,
Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of
a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

    a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;

    b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

    c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

    a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

    b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting.

Date:  August 14, 2003
                                             /s/ Hugh R. Frater
                                             ------------------------------
                                             Name:  Hugh R. Frater
                                             Title: President and Chief
                                                    Executive Officer
<PAGE>   1
                                                                       Exhibit 5


June 14, 1999


The Dial Corporation
15501 North Dial Boulevard
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260-1619

      RE:   REGISTRATION STATEMENT ON FORM S-8 FOR THE DIAL CORPORATION 401(k)
            PLAN FOR HOURLY EMPLOYEES (AS AMENDED AND RESTATED EFFECTIVE AS OF
            JANUARY 1, 1998) (THE "PLAN")

Ladies and Gentlemen:

      This opinion is delivered in connection with the registration by The Dial
Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), on Form S-8 (the
"Registration Statement"), under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Act"), as
amended, of an additional 150,000 shares of common stock of the Company, par
value $.01 per share (the "Common Stock"), together with the associated
preferred stock purchase rights (the "Rights"), issuable pursuant to the Plan.

      In arriving at this opinion, I have examined such corporate instruments,
documents, statements and records of the Company, and I have examined such
statutes and regulations and have conducted such legal analysis, as I have
deemed relevant, necessary and appropriate for the purposes of this opinion. I
have assumed the genuineness of all signatures and the authenticity of all
documents submitted to me as originals, the conformity to original documents of
all the documents submitted to me as certified or photostatic copies, and the
authenticity of the originals of such latter documents. I also have assumed that
any future changes to the terms and conditions of the Plans will be duly
authorized by the Company and will comply with all applicable laws.

      Based on the foregoing, I am of the opinion that the additional 150,000
shares of Common Stock to be issued pursuant to the Registration Statement,
together with the associated Rights, have been duly authorized and, when issued
and delivered by the Company in accordance with the terms and conditions of the
Plan, will be legally issued, fully paid and nonassessable securities of the
Company.

      I hereby consent to the reference to my name in the Registration Statement
and further consent to the inclusion of this opinion as Exhibit 5 to the
Registration Statement. In giving this consent, I do not hereby admit that I am
in the category of persons whose consent
<PAGE>   2
is required under Section 7 of the Act or the rules and regulations of the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

      The opinion expressed herein is solely for your benefit in connection with
the Registration Statement and may not be relied on in any manner or for any
purpose by any other person or entity and may not be quoted in whole or in part
without my prior written consent.

                                  Very truly yours,


                                  /s/ Jane E. Owens
                                  -------------------------------------------
                                  Jane E. Owens
                                  Senior Vice President, General Counsel
                                  and Secretary
**Exhibit 10.1**

 

**PhaseForward Incorporated**

**Amendedand Restated Summary of Cash and Equity Compensation Practices for Non-EmployeeDirectors**

**(EffectiveJanuary 2, 2010)**

 

*Cash Compensation:*

 
| Annual  retainer for Board membership(1)              |   | $      | 30,000 |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
| Annual  retainer for lead independent director        |   | 12,000 |   |
|                                                  |   |   |   |
| Audit  and Finance Committee(2)                       |   |   |   |
| Annual  retainer for committee membership             |   | 12,000 |   |
| Additional  retainer for committee chair              |   | 8,000  |   |
|                                                  |   |   |   |
| Management  Development and Compensation Committee(3) |   | 7,000  |   |
| Annual  retainer for committee membership             |   | 8,000  |   |
| Additional  retainer for committee chair              |   |   |   |
|                                                  |   |   |   |
| Governance,  Nominating and Compliance Committee(3)   |   |   |   |
| Annual  retainer for committee membership             |   | 7,000  |   |
| Additional  retainer for committee chair              |   | 4,000  |   |

 

----

(1) Annual retainerfor Board service covers four regular Board meetings and one special budgetmeeting.

 

(2) Annual retainersfor Audit and Finance Committee service cover six regular meetings of thecommittee.

 

(3) Annualretainers for Management Development and Compensation Committee service andGovernance, Nominating and Compliance Committee service cover four regularmeetings of each committee.

 

For additional meetingsnot included in the annual retainers listed above, the following fees apply:

 
| Board  Meeting Fees (per meeting)     |   | $1,000/in  person; $500/telephone |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------|--------|
| Committee  Meeting Fees (per meeting) |   | $1,000/in  person; $500/telephone |   |

 

*Equity Compensation*

 

Upon the initial electionto the Board of Directors, each non-employee member would receive a one-timegrant of $150,000 worth of restricted stock units under our 2004 Stock Optionand Incentive Plan 9”the “2004 Plan”).

 

All non-employee membersof our Board are eligible to receive an annual grant of $75,000 worth ofrestricted stock units under the 2004 Plan.

 

All restricted stock unitawards granted to non-employee Board members vest as follows: 50% on secondanniversary of the grant and an additional 25% on each of the third and fourthanniversary of the date of grant. In the event of a change in control, allrestricted stock unit awards granted to our non-employee Board members wouldvest in full upon such change in control.

 

In addition to the cashand equity compensation described above, all members of our Board will bereimbursed for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred in attending meetingsof the Board of Directors.

 

1

----
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
33-52032, 333-116102, and 333-127922 on Forms S-8 and Registration Statement No.
333-136014 on Form S-3 of our reports dated November 1, 2006, relating to the
consolidated financial statements of The Greenbrier Companies, Inc. and
subsidiaries and management's report on the effectiveness of internal control
over financial reporting appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of The
Greenbrier Companies, Inc. for the year ended August 31, 2006.


Deloitte & Touche, LLP

Portland, Oregon
November 1, 2006
Before the Second Division,

March 18, 1958

No. 61694.

#### Keuffel & Esser Co. *v.*United States,

protests 307277-K and 315475-K (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of boxes similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 59557, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Mr. Shawn M. Garvin

Regional Administrator

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III

1650 Arch Street (Mail Code: 3RAOO)

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029Dear Mr. Garvin:

Enclosed for your approval is a revision to Pennsylvania’s State Implementation Plan

(SIP) concerning the amendments to 25 Pa. Code Chapter 129 (relating to standards for sources),to supersede the existing large appliance and metal ibmiture surface coating requirements. The

submittal includes two hard copies and one compact disk of a final rulemaking that amends ourexisting regulations at 25 Pa. Code Sections 129.51 and 129.52 (relating to general; and surfacecoating processes) and adds Section 129.52a (relating to control ofVOC emissions from large

appliance and metal fbrniture surface coating processes) for control ofVOC emissions from

large appliance and metal furniture surface coating processes.

This SIP revision submission includes the final rulemaking notice published in the

PennsylvaniaBulletin on September Li, 2010 (40 Pa.B. 5132), documentation ofthe public

participation process including proof ofpublic notice, and the Department ofEnvironmental

Protection’s public comment and response document.

Should you have any questions regarding this SIP revision, please contact Joyce E. Epps,

Director, Bureau ofAir Quality, by e-mail at jeepps@state.pa.us or by telephone at

717-787-9702.

Sin rely,

Secretary

Enclosures

An Equa’ Opportunity Employer www.dep.statepa.us Printed on Recycled Paper
July 1, 1948

No. 52450.

protest 124848-K.

#### Kachurin Drug Co. *v.*United States,

Plaintiff’s application for rehearing granted.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>       6
<SERIES>
   <NUMBER> 5
   <NAME> BELAIR CAPITAL FUND


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>                      784,583,265
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>                     845,722,617
<RECEIVABLES>                              0
<ASSETS-OTHER>                             485,206
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             847,924,491
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>                   0
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>                    0
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>                  194,280,891
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>                        194,280,891
<SENIOR-EQUITY>                            0
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>                   597,299,861
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>                      653,643,600
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>                      101
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>                  (1,391,297)
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>                     0
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>                    (1,697,648)
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>                   0
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>                   59,432,684
<NET-ASSETS>                               653,643,600
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>                          1,777,687
<INTEREST-INCOME>                          0
<OTHER-INCOME>                             0
<EXPENSES-NET>                             3,168,984
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>                    (1,391,297)
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>                   (1,697,648)
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>                  59,432,684
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>                      56,343,739
<EQUALIZATION>                             0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>                  0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>                   0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>                      0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>                    0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>                9,345
<SHARES-REINVESTED>                        0
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>                     653,633,500
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>                    0
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>                  0
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>                    0
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>                 0
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>                      266,941
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         1,858,935
<GROSS-EXPENSE>                            3,168,984
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>                       652,116,435
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>                      100.00
<PER-SHARE-NII>                            (0.233)
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>                    9.653
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>                       0
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>                  0
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>                       0
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>                        109.42
<EXPENSE-RATIO>                            3.28
[AVG-DEBT-OUTSTANDING]                     0
[AVG-DEBT-PER-SHARE]                       0


</TABLE>
# Summary Setup Sheet

# Financial Summary
EXHIBIT 99.1 -  Independent Accountant's Servicing Report for the year
                ended December 31, 2005

[KPMG Logo]





						KPMG LLP
						Suite 2300
						Three Wachovia Center
						401 South Tryon street
						Charlotte, NC 28202-1911





			Independent Accountants' Report


The Board of Directors
HomEq Servicing Corporation

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying
Management's Assertion, that HomeEq Servicing Corporation (the Company)
complied with the minimum servicing standards set forth in the Mortgage
Bankers Association of America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for
Mortgage Bankers, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2005.
Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with those
minimum servicing standards. Our responsibility is to express an
opinion on management's assertion about the Company's compliance
based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards
established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants
and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about
the Company's compliance with the minimum servicing standards specified
above and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary
in the circumstances. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable
basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination
on the Company's compliance with the minimum servicing standards.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2005 is fairly stated, in all material respects.



						/s/ KPMG LLP


February 24,2006