alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 58837.

protests 238256-K and 234759-K (New York).

#### S. A. Haram & Co., Inc., and B. Westergaard & Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of herring similar in all material respects to that the subject of Abstract 57760, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**WILLIAM HENRY COSBY,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 63 MM 2016** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 20th day of June, 2016, the Petition for Revi ew is**  DENIED.
|   | 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: | July 14, 2008 | By:*/s/ Mark S. Zouvas*            |
|--------|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |          | Mark S. Zouvas                                                                            |
|   |          | Chief Executive Officer                                                                   |
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.36    
    


 
 

REAFFIRMATION OF GUARANTY AND SECURITY AGREEMENT
  August 19, 2003    



U.S.
Bank National Association, as Agent

U.S. Bank Place

800 Nicollet Mall

Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 




	Re:
	Guaranty
Issued by the Undersigned dated March 31, 2003 (the "Guaranty") of the Obligations (as defined in the Guaranty) of LECG, LLC to the banks (the "Banks") party to the
Credit Agreement (defined below) and to U.S. Bank National Association, as agent for the Banks (the "Agent") 





        This
will confirm (a) that the undersigned hereby consents to the terms of that First Amendment to Amended and Restated Credit Agreement dated concurrently herewith by and between
LECG, LLC (the "Borrower"), the Banks and the Agent (the "First Amendment") and to the execution, delivery and consummation of the First Amendment and the New Revolving Notes (as defined in the First
Amendment) and the transactions contemplated thereby by the Borrower; and (b) that the obligations of the Borrower to the Agent or any Bank under the Credit Agreement as amended by the First
Amendment constitute "Obligations" of the Borrowers to the Banks within the meaning of the Guaranty. The undersigned confirms to the Agent and the Banks that the Obligations are and continue to be
secured by the security interest granted by the undersigned in favor of the Agent under that certain Amended and Restated Security Agreement dated as of March 31, 2003 (as amended, restated or
otherwise modified, the "Security Agreement"), and all of the terms, conditions, provisions, agreements, requirements, promises, obligations, duties, covenants and representations of the undersigned
under Guaranty or the Security Agreement, each as amended hereby, and any and all other documents and agreements entered into with respect to the obligations under the Guaranty or the Security
Agreement, are incorporated herein by reference and are hereby ratified and affirmed in all respects by the undersigned. 



	 	 	LECG HOLDING COMPANY, LLC.
	

 	
 	

By	
 	

/s/  JOHN C. BURKE      

	 	 	Its	 	CFO












QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.36


REAFFIRMATION OF GUARANTY AND SECURITY AGREEMENT August 19, 2003
No. 63523.

protests 59/757, etc. (New York).

#### Kaiser-Reismann Corp. *v.*United States,

*409Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of synthetic filaments similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Empire Brushes, Inc., et al.*v. *United, States*(42 Cust. Ct. 145, C.D. 2078), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-2368

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Benjamin Walker

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa, Waterloo

____________

 Submitted: February 13, 2015

Filed: March 5, 2015

[Unpublished]

____________

Before MURPHY, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Benjamin Walker directly appeals after he pled guilty to a drug-related

conspiracy charge, and the district court1

 sentenced him to a prison term within the

1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Northern District of Iowa.
calculated Guidelines range. Walker’s counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed

a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the substantive

reasonableness of Walker’s sentence. 

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its

discretion in sentencing Walker. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62

(8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (describing appellate review of sentences); see also United

States v. Bridges, 569 F.3d 374, 379 (8th Cir. 2009) (district court has wide latitude

to weigh 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors); cf. United States v. Pilcher, 587 Fed. Appx.

349, 350 (8th Cir. 2014) (unpublished per curiam) (affirming where district court

declined to apply then-proposed Guidelines Amendment 782; citing 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2)). In addition, having independently reviewed the record pursuant to

Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. 

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

As for counsel’s motion to withdraw, we conclude that allowing counsel to

withdraw at this time would not be consistent with the Eighth Circuit’s 1994

Amendment to Part V of the Plan to Implement The Criminal Justice Act of 1964. We

therefore deny counsel’s motion to withdraw as premature, without prejudice to

counsel refiling the motion upon fulfilling the duties set forth in the Amendment.

______________________________

-2-
Exhibit 32.2

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 PC Connection, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
the undersigned, Jack Ferguson, Executive Vice President, Treasurer, and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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: August 11, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/    Jack Ferguson                                            
|                      |  |  |  | Jack Ferguson                                                   
|                      |  |  |  | Executive Vice President, Treasurer, and Chief Financial Officer
No. 63982.

protests 59/19897, etc. (New York).

#### Eastern Commission Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of fish similar in all material respects to the fish blocks 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 plaintiffs was sustained.
1 The Honorable Ronald E. Longstaff, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Southern District of Iowa.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 00-3180

___________ Forrest G. Aubrey, Jr., * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Southern District of Iowa. Department of Labor, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: June 5, 2001 Filed: June 7, 2001

___________ Before BOWMAN, BEAM, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Forrest G. Aubrey, Jr. appeals the District Court’s 1 order dismissing his action under the Black Lung Benefits Act (Act). Aubrey initially applied for benefits under the Act on January 20, 1976. He was subsequently awarded benefits, payable by the Black Lung Disability Benefits Trust Fund (Fund), as of February 1995. Aubrey’s date of entitlement was then modified three times, resulting in three separate additional awards of back benefits. In the instant action Aubrey seeks interest on two of the-2-

awards of back benefits, and claims additional damages based on the delay in awarding benefits, alleging that the Department of Labor withheld and used his money while it denied him benefits to which it knew he was entitled. Having conducted de novo review, we conclude that the District Court properly dismissed Aubrey’s complaint. See 30 U.S.C. § 922 (1994) (describing benefits payable under Act); 30 U.S.C. § 932(a) (1994) (incorporating 33 U.S.C. § 921 into Act); 33 U.S.C. § 921(d) (1994) (district court’s jurisdiction is limited to enforcing final awards to beneficiaries); G reene v. Dir., Office of Workers' Comp. Programs, U.S. Dep’tof Labor , 892 F.2d 1385, 1387 (8th Cir. 1990) (order amending judgment andawarding attorneys fees) (deleting from prior court order award of interest for period of time when benefits under Act were withheld, citing 20 C.F.R. § 725.608(d) and"longstanding law" that interest against U.S. instrumentality is not permitted unless specifically authorized by statute); 20 C.F.R. § 725.608(d) (2000) (Fund shall be liable for payment of interest only on advances from United States Treasury). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
BefoRe Judge Donlon,

November 30, 1967

No. R67/120.

#### The Tupman Thurlow Co., Inc. *v.*United States, reappraisement R60/18228 (Philadelphia).

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *International*Packers, *Limited*v. *United States*(52 Cust. Ct. 472, Reap. Dec. 10696), the court found and held that United States value, as defined in section 402a (e), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, is the proper basis for determining value of the canned meat products exported from Argentina during the period January 1, 1959, through December 31, 1959, and that such values per dozen tins, net packed, are the respective values shown as plaintiff’s claimed values on schedule “B,” for the respective products and sizes of container described on the invoice and as stated in the entry and recited in said schedule “B,” during those periods which correspond to the time of exportation of the canned meat products covered by this appeal for reappraisement, said schedule “B,” being attached to and made a part of this decision.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

   Schedule of Year-To-Date Principal and Interest Distributions
                           to
                  Certificateholders
                                                                              Ending
Class                   Interest             Principal      Losses           Balance
<S>                     <C>                  <C>            <C>              <C>
A1A                      814,183.98       1,040,867.51         0.00         53,959,132.49
A1F                      751,902.03       2,280,446.09         0.00         39,719,553.91
A2F                      215,100.00               0.00         0.00         12,000,000.00
A3F                      529,974.99               0.00         0.00         29,000,000.00
A4F                      152,199.99               0.00         0.00          8,000,000.00
A5F                      345,187.50               0.00         0.00         17,500,000.00
A6F                      225,300.00               0.00         0.00         12,000,000.00
B                        128,212.50               0.00         0.00          6,500,000.00
BIO                      815,784.87               0.00         0.00                  0.00
IOF                    1,122,399.99               0.00         0.00                  0.00
M1                       187,387.50               0.00         0.00          9,500,000.00
M2                       167,662.50               0.00         0.00          8,500,000.00
P                         29,231.21               0.00         0.00                100.00
R1                             0.00               0.00         0.00                  0.00
R2                             0.00               0.00         0.00                  0.00
R3                             0.00               0.00         0.00                  0.00

</TABLE>
Before the First Division,

October 21, 1958

No. 62419.

#### B. R. Anderson & Co. and Hemphill Brothers, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 248106-K, etc. (Seattle).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

The protests were dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE>   BD
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS RESTATED SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
THE HOENIG GROUP INC. FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIODS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND NOTES
THERETO.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                             SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                    20,244,219
<RECEIVABLES>                             14,417,751
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                              0
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                       19,196,081
<PP&E>                                     2,302,602
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            62,808,282
<SHORT-TERM>                                       0
<PAYABLES>                                 9,481,099
<REPOS-SOLD>                                       0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                                0
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                                 0
<LONG-TERM>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                     108,007
<OTHER-SE>                                38,890,751
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              62,808,282
<TRADING-REVENUE>                                  0
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                       1,419,780
<COMMISSIONS>                             50,671,115
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                      0
<FEE-REVENUE>                              4,771,783
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 0
<COMPENSATION>                            14,670,416
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            4,128,626
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                               2,542,570
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    .27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    .26
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2


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 Annual Report of Marine Growth Ventures, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended    December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Katherine A Ostruszka, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section     1350 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.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section     1350 and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be 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.











Date:  March 30, 2010
By:
/s/ Katherine A OstruszkaKatherine A Ostruszka

Chief Financial Officer & Controller

(Principal Financial & Accounting Officer)
Before the Third Division,

July 31, 1951

No. 55798.

protest 845945-G (Los Angeles).

#### W. X. Huber Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that a portion of the rice, namely, 3 percent, consists of broken kernels which will pass readily through a metal sieve perforated with round holes five and one-half sixty-fourths of 1 inch in diameter the same as the broken rice covered by *United States*v. *Great Pacific Co. et al.*(23 C. C. P. A. 319, T. D. 48192) and *United States*v. *Kwong Lee Chong Co. et al.*(id. 327, T. D. 48193), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 50805.

#### Protests 56969-K, etc., of Calarco Importing Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that certain items of the merchandise consist of cheese similar in all material respects either to the Romano, Pecorino Romano Sardo, Provolone, or Sbrinz cheese which was the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706). In accordance therewith it was held that an allowance of *2%*percent should have been made in the weight of the cheese by the collector in computing the duty thereon to compensate for the weight of the inedible substance on the outside of the cheese. The protests were sustained to this extent.
No. 55799.

protest 165764-K (New York).

#### Swift & Anderson, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the Federal Reserve bank certified dual rates of exchange for the currency involved in the liquidation of entries 767844 and 2130 for the dates of exportation of the merchandise covered by the entries, and that the circumstances relating to the liquidation of the said entries are similar in all material respects to those in Abstract 54732. In view of this stipulation and following the cited decision it was held that the currency of the invoices should have been converted in the manner directed by the judgment of this court in said Abstract 54732, in accordance with Bureau of Customs Circular Letter No. 2675, dated October 19, 1949. Altimeters, stipulated to be *294similar in all material respects to those the subject of *L. Oppleman, Inc.*v. *United States*(3 Cust. Ct. 167, C. D. 225), were held dutiable at 15 percent under paragraph 372, as modified by T. D. 51802, insofar as such claim covers certain items on the invoice accompanying entry 2130.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1069 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1069

To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the memorialization 
at the columbarium at Arlington National Cemetery of veterans who have 
       donated their remains to science, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 11, 1999

Mr. Goodlatte introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the memorialization 
at the columbarium at Arlington National Cemetery of veterans who have 
       donated their remains to science, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. MEMORIALIZATION AT COLUMBARIUM AT ARLINGTON NATIONAL 
              CEMETERY OF VETERANS WHO HAVE DONATED THEIR REMAINS TO 
              SCIENCE.

    (a) Authority To Memorialize.--(1) Chapter 24 of title 38, United 
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``Sec. 2412. Arlington National Cemetery: memorialization at 
              columbarium of veterans who have donated their remains to 
              science
    ``The Secretary of the Army may honor, by marker or other 
appropriate means at the columbarium at Arlington National Cemetery, 
the memory of any veteran eligible for inurnment in the columbarium 
whose cremated remains cannot be inurned in the columbarium as a result 
of the donation of the veteran's organs or remains for medical or 
scientific purposes.''.
    (2) The table of sections at the beginning of that chapter is 
amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``2412. Arlington National Cemetery: memorialization at columbarium of 
                            veterans who have donated their remains to 
                            science.''.
    (b) Applicability.--Section 2412 of title 38, United States Code, 
as added by subsection (a), shall apply to veterans who die on or after 
January 1, 1996.
                                 <all>
```
No. 60350.

protests 229451-K etc. (New York).

#### Accurate Millinery Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of hoods the same in all material respects as those passed upon in *United States*v. *Accurate Millinery Co., Roberts, Reilly & Sons, et al.*(42 C. C. P. A. 229, C. A. D. 599), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 63999.

protests 123564-K, etc. (Indianapolis).

#### Old Quaker Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C.C.P.A. 130, C.A.D. 508), and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C.D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 65348.

#### International Fisheries Corporation *v.*United States,

protests 151425-K, 153446-K, and 182680-K (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

The protests were dismissed.