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

January 23, 1952

No. 56291.

petition 6779-R (Pittsburgh).

#### Salvatore Roselli Memorials *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

It appeared from the record that the pieces in question were imported for installation in a cemetery in Connellsville, Pa., and that the petitioner had previously contracted for their execution or fabrication in Italy at a cost of $555. Prior to importation, at the request of the foreign shipper, petitioner had forwarded an advance payment of $150. When the invoice was received, instead of showing the total purchase price of the merchandise, it showed only the balance remaining to be paid, i. e., $405. Because of the fact that the petitioner believed the entire memorial to be entitled to free entry as original sculptures or statuary under paragraph 1807, Tariff Act of 1930, he did not examine the invoice when it was received but forwarded it to a customs broker with instructions to make entry in accordance therewith. The appraiser returned the value of the entire memorial at $555, and advisorily classified the same as dutiable as marble, wholly manufactured into monuments, at 25 percent ad valorem under paragraph 232 (d), as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T. D. 51802). The court found that the undervaluation on entry was the result of a combination of the error on the part of the shipper in failing to indicate the entire cost of the shipment and the inexperience in customs matters of the petitioner. It was held that there was no intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

JUANITA DEVINE,

Petitioner

v.

FRANK KUMAS, CLIFFORD LASKY, AND 

JONATHAN TAYLOR, ESQUIRE,

Respondents

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 522 EAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 22nd day of March, 2022, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
(Reap. Dec. 10296)

Entry No. 17754.

#### Wheeler & Miller *v.*United States

(Decided July 12, 1962)

*Lawrence & Tuttle*for the plaintiff.

*Joseph D. Guilfoyle,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

Counsel for the respective parties have submitted this appeal for reappraisement for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the court, as follows:

> 1. That the merchandise and the issues involved in the above-entitled appeal for reappraisement are the same in all material respects as those involved in *United States*v. *Gitkin Co.,*A.R.D. 132, and that the record in the cited case may be incorporated in the record herein.

> 2. At the time of exportation of the merchandise involved herein, the prices at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country of exportation, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trading, including the costs of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incidental to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, were the appraised values, less the amounts described on the invoices under the heading “Actual Charges”; and that at the said time of exportation, such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale to all purchasers for home consumption in the country of exportation.

> 3. That the above-entitled appeal may be submitted on this stipulation, the same being limited to the merchandise and the issues described hereinabove and abandoned in all other respects.

On the agreed facts and consistent with the cited decision on the law, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise *355in question is statutory export value and bold that such value therefor is the appraised values, less the amounts described on the invoices under the heading “Actual Charges.”

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 60718.

#### Trans-World Shipping Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 272658-K (New York).

*493Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

From a review of the record in this case, the court found nothing tending in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the classification by the collector. The protest was therefore overruled.
Case 2:03-cv-04822-RBS Document 65-6 Filed 08/14/2009 Page 1 of 8
Case 2:03-cv-04822-RBS Document 65-6 Filed 08/14/2009 Page 2 of 8
Case 2:03-cv-04822-RBS Document 65-6 Filed 08/14/2009 Page 3 of 8
Case 2:03-cv-04822-RBS Document 65-6 Filed 08/14/2009 Page 4 of 8
Case 2:03-cv-04822-RBS Document 65-6 Filed 08/14/2009 Page 5 of 8
Case 2:03-cv-04822-RBS Document 65-6 Filed 08/14/2009 Page 6 of 8
Case 2:03-cv-04822-RBS Document 65-6 Filed 08/14/2009 Page 7 of 8
Case 2:03-cv-04822-RBS Document 65-6 Filed 08/14/2009 Page 8 of 8
Exhibit 4.1


 


SHARE CERTIFICATE


 


	Number	 	Shares
	 	 	 



 


Building
DreamStar Technology Inc.


 


THIS SHARE CERTIFICATE CERTIFIES
THAT as of [Transfer date], [Name] of [Address] is the registered holder of [Number] fully paid Ordinary Share(s) of US$0.0001
par value per share in the above named Company which are held subject to, and transferable in accordance with, the Memorandum and
Articles of Association of the Company (as Revised).


 


In Witness Whereof the Company
has authorized this certificate to be issued on [Transfer date].


 


	 	By	 
	 	 	Director
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 27, 2010

d0920 

# Order

September 27, 2010

137412

FRANKLIN ALLEY and JANET ALLEY, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v SC: 137412 COA: 283634 Gladwin CC: 07-003343-NH FRANK SECK, D.O., and CEDAR AVENUE FAMILY PRACTICE, Defendants-Appellants.

________________ _______________ __________/

By order of May 7, 2009, the applicati on for leave to appeal the August 22, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in Holman v
Rasak (Docket No. 137993). On order of the Court, the case having been decided on July 13, 2010, 486 Mich 429 (2010), the applicati on is again considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted in light of Holman

, supra

.

H ATHAWAY , J., would grant leave to appeal.
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONPursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of (18 U.S.C.
1350), the undersigned officer of Keewatin Windpower Corp., a Nevada corporation
(the Company), does hereby certify, to the best of such officers knowledge
and belief, that:

(1) The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended May 31,
2009 (the Form 10-K) of the Company 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 Form 10-K fairly presents,
in all materials respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.

|Date: August 28,
      2009 | /s/
      Chris Craddock                                       
|--------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------
|                            | Chris Craddock                                                 
|                            | Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
      Officer      
|                            | Principal Executive Officer, Principal
      Accounting Officer
|                            | and Principal Financial Officer                                



This certification shall not be deemed filed for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability
of that section. Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Securities Exchange
Act.

---
No. 62421.

#### The Akron et al. *v.*United States,

protests 58/5208, etc. (Los Angeles).

*396Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of electric motors similar to those the subject of Abstract 60545, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
ww-ex1044_606.htm



 

EXHIBIT 10.44

 


	

	
 
	
WW International, Inc.

675 Sixth Avenue, 6th Floor

New York, NY 10010  




 

 

August 7, 2019 

Michael Lysaght 

Chief Technology Officer

 

 

Dear Michael,

 

I am very pleased to congratulate you on your promotion to the position of Chief Digital Officer, reporting to Mindy Grossman, President & Chief Executive Officer. This promotion recognizes both the significant contributions you have made, and the potential for expanded impact we anticipate you will have on the business in the future. The details associated with your new role including compensation and benefits are outlined below. 

 

Effective Date: 7/8/2019

 

Salary: Your new salary will be $475,000 per year, Salaried Exempt (not overtime eligible). 

 

Bonus Plan: You will continue to be eligible to participate in the Annual Bonus Program & your annual target in your new position will remain 60% of your annual base salary. 

Incentive Equity Award: You are eligible to participate in the Corporation's annual stock-based incentive compensation program, in accordance with the terms and conditions of such program as determined by the Corporation's Compensation Committee in its sole discretion, as amended from time to time. Effective with respect to the Corporation's annual stock-based incentive compensation program for fiscal 2019, employee shall have a target aggregate grant amount value of 125% of Base Salary (allocated and subject to such terms as determined by the Corporation's Compensation Committee in its sole discretion).

PTO: You will continue to be eligible to accrue 29 days PTO per year. 

Wellbeing Allowance: You will continue to be eligible for a yearly $1,000 reimbursement towards approved well-being or fitness expenses. 

Michael, we believe this to be an excellent step in your career growth both personally and professionally at WW. We appreciate all of your contributions and we are looking forward to your continued growth and success. 


	
 
	





 



 

 


	

	
 
	
WW International, Inc.

675 Sixth Avenue, 6th Floor

New York, NY 10010  




 

 

Sincerely,

 

/s/ Kim Seymour

Kim Seymour 

Chief People Officer 

On behalf of 

Mindy Grossman 

President & Chief Executive Officer
No. 53877.

#### A. Oppenheimer Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 140580-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Rieser, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2019-Ohio-5153.] 

COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. RIESER. 

[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Rieser, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2019-Ohio-5153.] 

(No. 2017-1741—Submitted December 13, 2019—Decided December 16, 2019.) 

ON APPLICATION FOR REINSTATEMENT. 

____________________ 

{¶ 1} This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing of an 

application for reinstatement by respondent, David Paul Rieser, Attorney 

Registration No. 0025247, last known business address in Columbus, Ohio. 

{¶ 2} The court coming now to consider its order of September 26, 2018, 

wherein the court, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(12)(A)(3), suspended respondent from 

the practice of law for a period of two years, with one year stayed on conditions, 

finds that respondent has substantially complied with that order and with the 

provisions of Gov.Bar R. V(24). 

{¶ 3} Therefore, it is ordered by this court that respondent is reinstated to 

the practice of law in the state of Ohio. 

{¶ 4} It is further ordered that the clerk of this court issue certified copies 

of this order as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(17)(D)(1) and that publication be 

made as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(17)(D)(2). 

{¶ 5} For earlier case, see Columbus Bar Assn. v. Rieser, 153 Ohio St.3d 

645, 2018-Ohio-3860, 109 N.E.3d 1244. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY,

and STEWART, JJ., concur. 

________________________
<Page>

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the use in this Post-Effective Amendment No. 2 to Registration
Statement No. 333-101937 of Hartford Life Insurance Company Separate Account
Seven on Form N-4, of our report dated February 19, 2003 of Hartford Life
Insurance Company relating to the financial statements as of and for the year
ended December 31, 2002, 2001 and 2000, and of our report dated February 21,
2003 of Hartford Life Insurance Company Separate Account Seven relating to
the financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2002,
appearing in the Statement of Additional Information, which is a part of such
Registration Statement, and to the reference to us under the headings
"Experts" in such Statement of Additional Information.

Deloitte & Touche LLP
Hartford, Connecticut
October 6, 2003
Before the Second Division,

March 11, 1968

No. P68/125.

protests 60/25090, 65/2469, and 65/2470 (Boston).

#### Raymond H. Hamson *v.*United States,

Rao, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of bicycles, with or without tires having wheels in diameter (measured to the outer circumference of the tire) over 25 inches, weighing less than 36 pounds complete without accessories, and not designed for use with tires having a cross-sectional diameter exceeding 1% inches and that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Schmidt Pritchard &*Co., *Mangano Cycles Co.*(47 CCPA 152, C.A.D. 750), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit 32.1



Certification



Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned hereby certifies that:



(1) I have reviewed the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of InLand Capital Fund, L.P. (the "Report") to which this statement is an Exhibit;



(2) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(3) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of InLand Capital  Fund, L.P.



|       |                                                         
|------ | --------------------------------------------------------
|By:    | Inland Real Estate Investment Corporation               
|       | General Partner                                         
|       |                                                         
|       |                                                         
|By:    | /S/ Brenda G. Gujral                                    
|       |                                                         
|Name:  | Brenda G. Gujral                                        
|Title: | President of the General Partner and                    
|       | principal executive officer of InLand Capital  Fund, L.P
|Date:  | July 24, 2006
NUMBER 13-11-00567-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

ANTHONY SPENCER, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Vela

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Anthony Spencer, pro se, filed a notice of appeal on August 23, 2011, 

and September 1, 2011, from an order granting the State’s application for a writ of 

procedendo on April 29, 2011. On September 8, 2011, the Clerk of this Court notified 

appellant that it appeared that the order from which the appeal was taken was not an 
2

appealable order, that the appeal had not been timely perfected, and requested 

correction of these defects within ten days or the appeal would be dismissed. Appellant 

responded that the appeal is timely and that the writ of procedendo was a final judgment.

A defendant may appeal to a court of appeals if he is convicted in a municipal court 

of record only if “the fine assessed against the defendant [in municipal court] exceeds 

$100 and if the judgment is affirmed” by the county court. TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 

30.00027(a) (Vernon 2004). In this case the order of the county court was that the 

appeal be abated, dismissed, and remanded to the municipal court. It, therefore, 

appears that because the judgment was not affirmed by the trial court, this Court does not 

have jurisdiction to hear the appeal as the statutory requirements of Section 30.00027(a) 

of the Texas Government Code have not been satisfied. 

The Court is of the opinion that there is not an appealable order and this Court 

lacks jurisdiction over the matters herein. Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED for 

lack of jurisdiction. 

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 

Delivered and filed the

29th day of December, 2011.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, M. Dale Skeen, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Technology Officer, certify
that:

      (1)   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Vitria
            Technology, Inc.; and

      (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.



                                     By:  /s/ M. DALE SKEEN, PH.D.
                                          ------------------------------------
Date:  August 17, 2004                    M. Dale Skeen, Ph.D.
                                          Chief Executive Officer and Chief
                                          Technology Officer
**中文**

**給貸款人的語言通知**

**您的抵押貸款交易可能用英語進行。**您收到的資訊和待簽署的官方文件也可能是英文版。

**我們希望您能了解交易內容。我們可能會為您提供英文版文件的幫助譯文。**這些文件有助於您了解交易內容。您的貸款人或貸款機構可能無法為您提供翻譯服務或翻譯文件。

您也可通過美國住宅與城市發展部 (英文簡稱為 HUD) 認定的**住房諮詢機構獲取語言協助和資源。**您可在以下網站獲取 HUD 認定的住房諮詢機構名單:www.hud.gov/counseling。

1. 選擇您附近的「housing counseling agency」,然後選擇您所在的州。

2. 如需查找所在區域內使用您偏好語言的住房諮詢機構,請選擇「Click here to narrow your search」,然後選擇語言。

3. 或者致電 800-569-4287 聯繫 HUD,獲取諮詢機構查找幫助。

您還可以在以下網站獲取住房諮詢機構的相關資訊:www.consumerfinance.gov/find-a-housing-counselor。
No. 53419.

protest 138276-K (New York).

#### Alcoa Steamship Company, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

From an examination of the papers the court was unable to find any evidence sufficient to overcome the action of the collector, which was presumptively correct. The protest was therefore overruled.
March 4, 1954

No. 57900.

Suit 4746.

#### L. Tobert Co., Inc., and American Shipping Co. *v.*United States.

Abstract 56581 affirmed November 2, 1953. C. A. D. 544.
pol 

ProcessI

D

stateI

D countyID yearID

source 

TypeID

fuel 

TypeID

IM 

ProgramI

D

inspect 

Freq

test 

Standard

sID

begModel 

YearID

endModel 

YearID

use 

IMyn

compliance 

Factor

101 47 47157 2021 21 1 1 1 11 1974 1995 N 83.16

101 47 47157 2021 21 1 10 1 51 1996 2019 N 83.16

101 47 47157 2021 31 1 1 1 11 1974 1995 N 83.16

101 47 47157 2021 31 1 10 1 51 1996 2019 N 83.16

101 47 47157 2021 32 1 1 1 11 1974 1995 N 83.16

101 47 47157 2021 32 1 10 1 51 1996 2019 N 83.16

101 47 47157 2021 52 1 1 1 11 1974 1995 N 83.16

101 47 47157 2021 52 1 10 1 51 1996 2019 N 83.16

102 47 47157 2021 21 1 1 1 11 1974 1995 N 83.16

102 47 47157 2021 21 1 10 1 51 1996 2019 N 83.16

102 47 47157 2021 31 1 1 1 11 1974 1995 N 83.16

102 47 47157 2021 31 1 10 1 51 1996 2019 N 83.16

102 47 47157 2021 32 1 1 1 11 1974 1995 N 83.16

102 47 47157 2021 32 1 10 1 51 1996 2019 N 83.16

102 47 47157 2021 52 1 1 1 11 1974 1995 N 83.16

102 47 47157 2021 52 1 10 1 51 1996 2019 N 83.16

112 47 47157 2021 21 1 8 1 43 1996 2006 N 83.16

112 47 47157 2021 31 1 8 1 43 1996 2006 N 83.16

112 47 47157 2021 32 1 8 1 43 1996 2006 N 83.16

112 47 47157 2021 52 1 7 1 41 1996 2006 N 83.16

112 47 47157 2021 52 1 8 1 43 2007 2019 N 83.16

113 47 47157 2021 21 1 8 1 43 1996 2006 N 83.16

113 47 47157 2021 31 1 8 1 43 1996 2006 N 83.16

113 47 47157 2021 32 1 8 1 43 1996 2006 N 83.16

113 47 47157 2021 52 1 7 1 41 1996 2006 N 83.16

113 47 47157 2021 52 1 8 1 43 2007 2019 N 83.16

301 47 47157 2021 21 1 10 1 51 1996 2019 N 83.16

301 47 47157 2021 31 1 10 1 51 1996 2019 N 83.16

301 47 47157 2021 32 1 10 1 51 1996 2019 N 83.16

301 47 47157 2021 52 1 10 1 51 1996 2019 N 83.16

302 47 47157 2021 21 1 10 1 51 1996 2019 N 83.16

302 47 47157 2021 31 1 10 1 51 1996 2019 N 83.16

302 47 47157 2021 32 1 10 1 51 1996 2019 N 83.16

302 47 47157 2021 52 1 10 1 51 1996 2019 N 83.16
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       6,289,127
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               26,577,922
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 27,663,055
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            76,570,548
<PP&E>                                      19,974,381
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             117,666,298
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       31,545,566
<BONDS>                                     46,102,467
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        98,771
<OTHER-SE>                                  39,919,494
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               117,666,298
<SALES>                                     25,739,419
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            25,739,419
<CGS>                                       19,067,593
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               19,067,593
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,690,539
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,194,824
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                838,976
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (336,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            502,976
<DISCONTINUED>                             (6,612,410)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (6,109,434)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.62)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.60)
        

</TABLE>