alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

 This case is a close one. But, on the record taken as a whole, I agree with Judge

Caracappa that substantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s decision.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EDWARD MERKEL,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOANNE B. BARNHART,

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

Defendant.

Civil Action No. 03-6503

ORDER

September 30, 2005

Upon consideration of the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment,

and after review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate

Judge Linda K. Caracappa, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED.

2. The Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is Denied.

3. The Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is Granted.1

Case 2:03-cv-06503-LP Document 16 Filed 10/04/05 Page 1 of 2
2

BY THE COURT:

________________________

LOUIS H. POLLAK J.

Case 2:03-cv-06503-LP Document 16 Filed 10/04/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 57175.

protests 847836-G, etc. (New York).

#### Silberstein-Neulander Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the kidskin plates are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Kung*
      *386
      *Chen Fur Corpn.*v. *United States*(29 Cust. Ct. 266, C. D. 1480), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was sustained.

Ford, J., concurred.

Molmson, J., dissented for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in C. D. 1480, *supra.*
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

APR 6 1999

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

STILLWATER CHRISTIAN

CHURCH,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CHURCH MUTUAL INSURANCE

COMPANY, a foreign corporation,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 98-6258

(D.C. No. CIV-97-901-C)

(W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before BALDOCK , BARRETT , and HENRY , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral

argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore

ordered submitted without oral argument.
-2-

Plaintiff-appellant Stillwater Christian Church appeals the district court’s

order denying its post-trial motion to set aside the summary judgment entered in

favor of defendant-appellee. We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291

and affirm.

Defendant was the insurer of plaintiff’s church property damaged in an

arson fire. Defendant ultimately paid full coverage for the damage, but plaintiff

claims defendant’s delays in investigation and payment violated the policy and

state insurance law, thereby entitling it to damages, interest, and attorney fees. 

After the district court granted summary judgment to defendant, plaintiff moved

to set the judgment aside on the grounds that it was not supported by sufficient

evidence, it was contrary to law, the district court improperly weighed the

evidence, plaintiff was entitled to sums in addition to the insurance proceeds,

and newly discovered evidence dictated a different result. On appeal, plaintiff

argues that the district court erred in denying its post-trial Motion for New Trial

or Amendment of Judgment and/or Relief from Judgment.

“We review an appeal from a motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion.” 

Herr v. Heiman , 75 F.3d 1509, 1515 n.1 (10th Cir. 1996). We have carefully

reviewed the materials submitted by the parties as well as the applicable law and
-3-

we find no abuse of discretion or reversible error. Accordingly, the judgment

of the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma is

AFFIRMED for substantially the reasons stated in the district court’s orders

dated February 4, 1998 and May 19, 1998.

Entered for the Court

Bobby R. Baldock

Circuit Judge
### Docket Number: FAA **- 2012**  **- 0191**  **Contacts.** With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed?



### Organization Person Contacted **Date** Response **National Business Aircraft Association Eli Cotti**  2/16/12 **Regional Airline Association** 2/16/12 **Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association Robert Hackman**  2/16/12 **Airlines for America Joe White**  2/16/12
No. 61241.

protests 268129-K, etc. (New York).

#### Vandegrift Forwarding Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of soup mixes similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Cresca Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(38 Cust. Ct. 211, C. D. 1864), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Exhibit 32

  Certification of Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
                             18 U.S.C. Section 1350
                             as Adopted Pursuant to
                  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002




The undersigned, the Principal Executive Officer (President) and the Principal
Financial Officer (President) of GLOBAL BIOTECH CORP. (the "Company"), hereby
certifies that to his knowledge on the date hereof:

          (a)  The Annual Report on Form 10-K SB of the Company for the year
               ended November 30, 2007, filed on the date hereof with the
               Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report") fully complies
               with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the
               Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
          (b)  Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
               material respects, the financial condition and results of
               operations of the Company.


Date: May 28, 2008

                                                       /s/ Louis Greco
                                              ----------------------
                                                       Louis Greco
                                                       President
                                     (Principal Executive and Financial Officer)





This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed
by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended.
Case 2:02-cv-04074-BWK Document 6 Filed 08/27/2002 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:02-cv-04074-BWK Document 6 Filed 08/27/2002 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit
99.12





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 Enerplus Resources Fund (the "Fund") on
Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert
J. Waters, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of EnerMark Inc.,
on behalf of the Fund, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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
      Fund.




/s/
      Robert J. WatersRobert
      J. Waters
              Senior
      Vice President and
              Chief
      Financial Officer of EnerMark Inc.




March
18, 2008




The
foregoing certification shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18
of the 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 Exchange Act, except
to the extent that the registrant specifically incorporates it by
reference.
Before the Third Division,

November 12, 1953

No. 57617.

#### Ignaz Strauss & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 194594-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the articles in question consist of silent butlers, smoothing irons, and various other trays, the composition of which is the same in all material respects as the merchandise involved in *Ignaz Strauss & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 342, C. D. 710), *The Fan Co.*v. *United States*(25 Cust. Ct. 42, C. D. 1261), and *Ignaz Strauss & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(28 Cust. Ct. 280, C. D. 1423). In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of the decisions cited, the merchandise was held dutiable as follows: (1) The items marked with the letter “A” at 40 percent under paragraph 339 as household utensils, composed wholly or in chief value of brass, not plated with platinum, gold, or silver; (2) the items marked with the letter “B” at 35 percent under the provision in paragraph 339, as modified by the trade agreement with the United Kingdom (T. D. 49753), for household utensils, composed wholly or in chief value of copper, not plated with platinum, gold, or silver; (3) the items marked with the letter “G” at 35 percent under the provision in paragraph 339, as modified by T. D. 49753, for household utensils, plated with silver on copper; (4) the items marked with the letter “D” at 25 percent under the provision in paragraph 339, as modified by T. D. 49753, for household utensils, composed wholly or in chief value of pewter, not plated with platinum, gold, or silver; and (5) the items marked with the letter “E” at 35 percent under paragraph 209 as manufactures of soapstone.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

ANTWAN D. JOHNSON, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-4573 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed June 20, 2018. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Polk County; Neil Roddenberry, Judge

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
CASANUEVA, CRENSHAW, and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
----

**Exhibit      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

| (1) | the                Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended                September 30, 2006 (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. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   |   |                                                                                                                      |
|--------|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|        |   |   | /s/                Scott D. Dorfman                                                                                       |
|        |   |   | Scott                D. DorfmanPresident,                Chief Executive Officer and Chairman                of the Board |
No. 52492.

protests 58156-K, etc. (New York).

#### Associated Merchandising Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion- by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Case No. 18,055.

#### SMITH v. HAZEL.

[3 Cranch, C. C. 55.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Dec. Term, 1826.

•Replevin — Title—Mitigation op Damages.

In an action upon a replevin bond the defendant may, in mitigation of damages, give evidence of title in himself of the property replev-ied. Quaere?

Debt on replevin bond [by William Smith against Zachariah Hazel]. The plaintiff in replevin was non-prossed, and the defendant had judgment for a return. The writ of re-tomo habendo was returned “elongata.”

Mr. Wallach, for defendant Hazel,

offered’ to give evidence, in mitigation of damages, that the property of the goods replevied was in him; and cited McDaniel v. Fish [Case No. 8,744], in this court, at December term, 1818, and Wilson v. Slye [unreported].

THE OOURT,

at first, thought that the evidence was not admissible, because it was matter of defence to the original suit, of which the plaintiff in that suit might have availed himself, but did not, and that the defendant could not give evidence that the plaintiff in this suit ought not to have had judgment in the replevin; but, upon reconsideration, permitted the defendant to give the evidence, reserving a right to'the plaintiff to move for a new trial, on the ground of admitting improper evidence.

Verdict for the plaintiff, $200 damages.
**Exhibit      99.9**

**CERTIFICATION        PURSUANT TO**

**18        U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| (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                  Fund. |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/                  Robert J. Waters                                                                                                 |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Robert                  J. WatersSenior                  Vice President and Chief                  Financial Officer of EnerMark Inc. |   |

*The        foregoing certification shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section        18        of the 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 Exchange Act, except to the extent that the        registrant specifically incorporates it by reference.*
No. 51857.

#### Associated Merchandising Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 129050-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
#### Mousseau *et al. vs.*Dorsett.

1. The evidence sustains the verdict.

2. Taking the whole charge together there was no error in it. It stated the issues fairly to the jury, and presented the law fairly and impartially.

April 9, 1888.

Evidence. Verdict. Charge of court. Before Judge Harden. City court of Savannah. July term, 18S7.

*567Reported in the decision.

Denmark & Adams, for plaintiff in error.

J. R. Saussy, *contra.*

Simmons, Justice.

Dorsett brought suit in the city court of Savannah against Mousseau, Mrs. Mousseau and Dillon, alleging that they were indebted to him in' the sum of $1,500, on an account. A bill of particulars is attached to the declaration, and shows that the account was for services as a broker in finding a purchaser for certain real estate known as Dillontown. On the trial -of the case, the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendants made a motion for a new trial, on the several grounds contained therein, which was overruled by the court, and they excepted.

The grounds of error alleged are, in substance, that the verdict was contrary to the evidence, and that the judge erred in giving in charge to the jury certain charges set out in the motion for a new trial.

1. ¥e have carefully read the evidence sent up in the record, and are of the opinion that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the finding of the jury. It was admitted by the defendants in the court below that the plaintiff had at one time been employed to sell this land. The main defence was, that the defendant had taken the land out of the hands of the plaintiff, Dorsett, and had never agreed to pay him anything for his services unless he sold the land at a certain price ; that Dorsett had not sold the land nor found a purchaser, and therefore, under the contract, was not entitled to any compensation. Dorsett denied this, and alleged that the contract was that he was to be paid commissions on the land whether he sold it or not, and that the land had never been taken out of his hands by Mousseau ; and that while he did not make the sale and Mousseau did, it was through his efforts that Mousseau *568was enabled to make it. This conflict between the plaintiff and the defendant was a question to be decided exclusively by the jury. They believed Dorsett; and we cannot say that they erred in so doing.

2. We have carefully considered the alleged errors of the court in his charge to the jury, and taking the whole charge together, we find no error in it. “ A charge, torn to pieces and scattered in disjointed fragments, may seem objectionable, although when put together and considered as a whole it may be perfectly sound.” *Brown et al. vs. Matthews et*al., March term, 1887, 79 *Ga.*1. We think the charge stated the issues fairly to the jury, and presented the law fairly and impartially.

Ju Igment affirmed.
Denise K. Nelson

From: Ladejobi, Mondiu <Mondiu.Ladejobi@compliance.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2017 10:02 AM

To: (Moses P. Saldana III

Subject:

Automatic reply: Are your customers still sending checks?

Mondiu Ladejobi is no longer with the Office of Compliance (OOC). If you need help, please contact the main office at 202-724-
9250.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Annual Report of GSI Technology, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the year ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Douglas M. Schirle,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, thatbased on my knowledge:

(1)   The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

(2)   The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultof operations of the Company.
| /s/ Douglas M. Schirle    |     |
|---------------------------|----------|
| Douglas M. Schirle        |     |
| *Chief Financial Officer* | * * |

 

June 20, 2007

*A signed originalof this written statement required by Section 906, or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appearsin typed form within the electronic version of this written statement requiredby Section 906, has been provided to the Registrant and will be retainedby the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission orits staff upon request.*

----
Before the Second Division,

August 30, 1946

No. 51279.

#### Protests 58047-K, etc., of New York Merchandise Co., Inc. (New York).

*175Opinion by

La whence, J.

From the uncontradicted evidence the court found that the merchandise consists of Christmas tree lamps similar in all material respects to those the subject of *New York Merchandise Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(16 Cust. Ct. 148, C. D. 1003), wherein like lamps were held to be parts of Christmas tree lighting sets. On the established facts it was held that the merchandise which was entered for consumption or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption prior to January 1, 1939, is dutiable at 35 percent under paragraph 353, and that the merchandise entered for consumption or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption subsequent to that date is dutiable at 25 percent by virtue of T. D. 49753. The protests were sustained to this extent.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       1,597,000
<SECURITIES>                               136,663,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  535,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (36,000)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      85,141,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             (2,521,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             318,405,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                    105,336,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    213,000
<COMMON>                                       420,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 197,199,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               318,405,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,235,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,525,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,982,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (307,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (63,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (244,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (244,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)


</TABLE>
# DATA Act Reporting Schedule

# GTAS Reporting Window

&Z&F

# Program Activity Schedule
No. 49056.

#### Protest 63814-K/90482 of Wilson Sporting Goods Co. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise in question consists of willow cowhide sides the same in all material respects as those involved in Abstract 47787. In accordance therewith the protest was sustained to this extent.
Before the Third Division,

May 23, 1963

No. 67753.

#### Commercial Metals Co. and R. W. Smith *v.*United States,

protest 220396-K (Galveston).

*312Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that all of the requirements for free entry set forth in the customs regulations have now been met and following Abstracts 57104 and 64361, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.